Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Lieut.- Colonel J. WARD: I beg to present a petition from the Constitutional Reform Association of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong, signed by over 1,500 inhabitants of the colony, praying for the abolition, as far as the non-Chinese unofficial members of the Legislative Council are concerned, of the principle of Government nomination and the substitution of popular election therefor.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Bill [Lords].
West Hartlepool Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Council Bill [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed.

North Berwick Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "TREVESSA."

Colonel PERKINS: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement of the captain of the "Trevessa" that the contents of two of the boxes of biscuits carried on his boat proved on opening to be nearly all bad; and whether there is any systematic examination or renewal of such stores to ensure that boat stores are always in perfect order?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): I have seen Press statements about the biscuits of the "Trevessa." The owners inform me that these appear to have been extra supplies put into the boats, and that the ordinary supplies are in sealed tanks, air and water tight. The life-saving appliances of passenger steamers are inspected at least once a year, and those of cargo steamers as opportunity offer, the inspection in each case including the examination of the stores in the boats. It is the statutory duty of the owner and master of every ship to see that the lifesaving appliances are kept so as at all times to be fit and ready for use.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the case of the steamship "Trevessa" the pay of the crew ceases from the date of the loss of the vessel, and that the allotment notes to the families of the crew are also stopped: and, in view of the very great hardship that is involved, whether he will consider taking steps by an Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act or by other legislation to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what provision is being made for the families of the crew of the steamship "Trevessa" pending their return; and when legislation will be introduced to deal with the matter of the wages of crews of vessels which are wrecked, in order to prevent suffering to the dependants of shipwrecked men in cases such as that of the "Trevessa"?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As I have previously stated, full wages, including allotments, are being paid by the company to the crew up to the date of their arrival in this country. As regards the introduction of legislation, I would refer the hon. Members to the replies given on the 5th of July, of which I am sending them copies.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the replies were not definite at all? Is he also aware that in cases where publicity is given and public feeling aroused the men are being paid, but in many other cases, of which nothing is heard, great hardship is caused? Will the Government do something to remedy this state of affairs?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. and gallant Member is quite wrong. The answer given last week was specific, that the Government did intend to introduce legislation, but could not say when it would be possible to do so.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Could not legislation be passed through the House in one sitting by agreement? Cannot that be done in view of its urgency?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No one knows better than my hon. and gallant Friend what it is that obstructs necessary legislation.

Viscount CURZON: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any inquiry is to take place into the loss of the steamship" Trevessa"; whether such an inquiry will be held under the Board of Trade; when and where it will be held; whether special reference will be made as to whether the installation of wireless receiving and transmitting apparatus in the boats, in which the survivors were rescued, would have contributed in any measure to assist in their rescue or materially have lessened their sufferings, and thereby have saved life; and whether any national mark of appreciation will be accorded to the two officers responsible for such a magnificent landfall after a voyage of upwards of 1,500 miles in open boats under such conditions?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: A formal investigation into the circumstances attending the loss of the s.s. "Trevessa" will be ordered by the Board of Trade,
the inquiry taking place in this country, and the date and place of the inquiry being announced in due course. All the relevant circumstances will be investigated. I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing the Government's appreciation of the fine seamanship and good discipline displayed in the voyage of the two boats. I have considered carefully the question of granting awards; and in view of the fact that a full inquiry is to be held, I think that I ought to receive the report of the court of inquiry, before deciding finally upon the awards which should be made.

Mr. EDWARDS: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the dependants of those who lost their lives in the "Trevessa" come under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act; whether the Hain Steamship Company has any private arrangement for compensating the dependants of those who lose their lives whilst in their service; if not, will he suggest the opening of a fund for the support of those unfortunate people; and will he see that wages shall be paid to the above dependants up to the same date as those who landed safely?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Workmen's Compensation Act applies to seamen, as to other workmen, but a Government, Department has no power to decide whether particular cases come within its provisions or not. I have no information whether the owners have any private compensation arrangement. I understand that a fund has been started by "Lloyd's List" in connection with the loss of the "Trevessa." There is no power to require wages to be paid to the dependants up to the same date as those who landed safely, but the owners are doing this voluntarily.

WIRELESS WATCHERS.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the recent prosecution before the Liverpool stipendiary magistrate of Captain John Owen Evans, master of the steamer "Tredenham," who was fined for not keeping a continuous wireless watch, having temporarily withdrawn from this duty apprentices carried on board the steamer, and who pleaded that these apprentices were so withdrawn for pur-
poses of instruction in the general work of the ship; and whether, in view of the undesirability of midshipmen, cadets, or apprentices being compelled on board ship to take regular duty as wireless watchers when the obligation of their employers is to ensure that they are instructed in navigation and seamanship and in the duties and responsibilities appertaining to the positions of officers in the mercantile marine, in view of the indignation aroused amongst navigating officers and apprentices in the mercantile marine at the duties of wireless watchers being imposed upon them, and having regard to the fact that these duties are not part of their recognised duties on board ship, he will take steps with a view to stopping this practice?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware of the proceedings referred to. The allocation of duties among the ship's crew is a matter for the owners and master of the ship, and so long as the statutory requirements are complied with, the Board of Trade have no power to Intervene.

Viscount CURZON: How in the world are these apprentices going to get their proper training if they are kept on constant wireless watches?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: They are not kept on wireless watches the whole time.

Mr. PETO: Is there any prospect of automatic registration being brought into use for these wireless messages, so as to obviate the necessity for this watching?

Mr. SPEAKER: That, I think, is the subject of another question.

SEA LADDERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the sea ladders provided on board certain merchant vessels for the shipping and landing of pilots are inefficient and dangerous; and whether he will give instructions to the Board of Trade inspectors to examine these ladders at the same time as they examine the life-saving appliances in merchant vessels?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Complaints have been received as to the condition of the sea ladders used on merchant ships,
and inquiry shows that in some cases these are not satisfactory. The Board's surveyors are now looking at the sea ladders as part of the inspection of the life-saving appliances of ships, and the matter will be followed up.

Oral Answers to Questions — DALMARNOCK POWER WORKS, GLASGOW.

Mr. HARDIE: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the consumption of coal per kilowatt generated at the Dalmarnock Power Works, Glasgow; and what is the lowest consumption of coal per kilowatt produced in the British Isles?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. The average consumption of coal per unit (kilowatt hour) generated at the Dalmarnock Power Station during the past year was 1.99 lb. The lowest average consumption at any steam power station in Great Britain during the year was 1.73 lb. per unit generated. The Commissioners have no particulars concerning generating stations in Ireland which are no longer under their jurisdiction.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY DEBTS.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why a commission of 2½ per cent., on the moneys recovered by British subjects from former enemy debtors, is charged by the Enemy Debt Department against such British subjects; what was the total amount of such commissions received by the Enemy Debt Department in each of the years 1921 and 1922; and how such sums were applied?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The commission referred to is charged, under the Treaty of Peace Order, to defray the expenses of the Clearing Office (Germany) and indemnify His Majesty's Government against loss arising from any failure to collect debts owing by British nationals whose solvency is guaranteed by it under the Treaty. The total commission during the year ending 31st March, 1921, was £432,763 14s. 10d.; during the year ending 31st March, 1922, £402,277 12s. 4d.; and during the year ending 31st March, 1923, £183,228 9s. The matter is
fully dealt with in the First Report of the Controller of the Clearing Office, a copy of which I am sending my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. HARRIS: How long is this Department likely to go on? Is it not time it should be wound up and the staff released for other work?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir, it would be most unfortunate to wind up the Department before we have succeeded in getting payment of the money due to British Nationals.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Why do we not thrust on the debtor—who is the German—the cost of collecting the money due to British subjects? Why should British subjects pay the cost of collecting their own debts?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I must refer the hon. and learned Member to the Peace Treaty.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Has this large sum of £300,000 or £400,000 resulted in a profit to someone or some Department? How is it dealt with?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It has gone to pay the expenses of the Department, which is self-supporting. Whatever balance there is goes into a Suspense Account against any bad debts. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember the British Government has guaranteed the debts of their own Nationals.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Then does the person who has good debts have to contribute to those who have bad debts and do not get paid?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not the fact that the British Crown have recovered between twenty and thirty million pounds in debts, and are the creditors not very pleased to pay this 2½ per cent. in return for getting their money?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think that is so. One of the most satisfactory things in the Peace Treaty is the way in which we have been able to get payment of these debts. I am sure the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) will appreciate that it would be quite impossible to reopen the whole arrangements of the Peace Treaty. This is one that is working well.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUHR OCCUPATION (EXPORT LICENCES).

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British importers of lithopone from Germany who made contracts before the 1st of February find it almost impossible to get delivery of their goods, because the French authorities will not issue export licences, even after the payment of the French 7 per cent. duty, and that although the French authorities, under pressure, agreed to issue export licences, they in fact put every obstacle in the way of British traders receiving these licences; and will he say what he can do in the matter to protect British trade interests?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. If the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will make inquiry.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is that not the case that the trouble referred to in the question is due to the Germans, and not to the French? Is it not the case that the. French, in the action they are taking, are merely doing what the British only two years ago agreed should be done if the Germans did not pay?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: In this case what has happened—as I have told the House several times—is that an arrangement has been come to between the French and the German Government that the pre-occupation contracts should be bought out, and that I have every reason to hope and believe will be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNION COLD STORAGE COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fusion of nine companies engaged in the wholesale and retail distribution of imported meat with the Union Cold Storage Com pany, Limited, the stated object of the amalgamation being to put the company into an unrivalled position in addition to greatly increasing their revenue; whether he proposes to take any steps with a view to protecting the consumers against any attempt to exploit them by such a com-
bination; and whether he will now recommend the Government to carry out the promise he made in March, 1921, to introduce legislation dealing with trusts and combines?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have at present no reason to suppose that the consolidation now contemplated will be disadvantageous to consumers. The Government do not consider it necessary or desirable to introduce general legislation of the kind referred to at the present time.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is there not already sufficient material in the Report of the Sub-committee of the Profiteering Committee showing that combinations do exist to exploit the consumer? Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman now changed the view he held in March, 1921, and gave expression to on the Vote for the Board of Trade?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first question is in the negative. I have read all these Reports as carefully as the hon. Gentleman, and the remarkable thing is how little they disclose. Quite possibly, I have changed my view on this matter. I think it would be unwise, in the present critical state of trade, to introduce general legislation of this kind.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: May I ask whether the fusions which have occurred in this matter have not been the direct consequence of the operation of meat trusts having their headquarters in America; and if these fusions are inevitable, would it not be better to have them under British rather than under foreign control?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There may be a good deal in that.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: But—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Colonel PERKINS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has now been settled that all belated claims to the Reparation Claims Depart-
ment are to be individually considered and not decided as a whole; and whether, seeing that there are some thousands of men awaiting a definite announcement on the point, he will issue a general notification that this is the case, and at the same time give some idea of the approximate period which will be needed to examine these cases and so obviate the anxiety which exists in the minds of those concerned?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a notification which is being forwarded to every person who makes, or has made, a belated claim, asking whether there are any exceptional circumstances to excuse the delay in lodging their claim. All the replies are being considered individually, and there seems to be no need for a general notification to this effect. I regret that I cannot say how long the examination will take.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: Could the right hon. Gentleman state what sum of money is still available for the satisfaction of these belated claims?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, a total sum of £5,000,000 has been allotted to the Royal Commission, and, until I know how the Royal Commission is going to deal with the other set of claims which have already been made, I cannot answer that question.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Will the Commission still entertain any claims that have not already been made?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I should like notice of that question. In this matter, as the hon. Member knows, I am merely carrying out whatever awards are made by the Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — DYESTUFFS.

Major ATTLEE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, charge 10 per cent. commission on reparation dyestuffs, whereas, when the distribution was undertaken by the Central Importing Agency only 2½ per cent. was charged; and will he state for what reason this high rate of commission is permitted?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not aware that the British Dyestuffs Corporation charge 10 per cent. commission on reparation dyestuffs, and would refer to an answer which I gave on this matter on 4th December last, to the effect that the Corporation receives a commission of 6½ per cent. on the actual turnover, plus a further 1 per cent. for guaranteeing accounts, and a grant, which is limited in amount, towards the charges which they incur relating to the importation of the dyestuffs. The Central Importing Agency undertook the duty of importing and distributing the dyestuffs for a commission of 31 per cent., the rate to be adjusted if prices fell, but this charge proved to Le inadequate, and was considerably increased, with the approval of the Treasury, by various allowances made to the Central Importing Agency upon the final adjustment of their accounts.

Major PAGET: Is not this a case of the disadvantage of State ownership?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There is not any State ownership.

Major ATTLEE: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the high prices charged for reparation dyestuffs by the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited; that the price of diamine fast yellow F.F., a dye for which there is no satisfactory British substitute, has been raised from 4s. per lb. to 7s. 6d. per lb. and to 10s. per lb., although this dye could be imported from Germany for 4s. 6d. per lb.; and of the discontent aroused by this action among colour users; and what action he is prepared to take in the matter?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No complaint about the price of this dyestuff has been received by the Board of Trade, but the arrangements as to the pricing of reparation dyes are being reconsidered, and the price of this particular dye will come under review.

Major ATTLEE: Is it not the fact that these very high prices are put on in order to enable the Corporation to foist inferior substitutes on the colour users?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir; there is no truth in any of the many allegations contained in that short sentence.

Mr. COLLISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the growing restrictions, not only as regards the prices that have to be paid by the dye users, but as regards the inferior nature of these dyes, is seriously affecting the quality of manufactured goods in this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise now.

Oral Answers to Questions — BACON.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of boxes of bacon held in stock in this country by, or consigned to, the Food Department of the Board of Trade on the 31st March, 1921; and the purchase cost to the Department of these goods per box?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: 126,811 boxes of bacon were held in stock in this country by, or were consigned to, the Government on 1st April, 1921. Pending the issue of arbitration proceedings, it is not possible to state the purchase cost per box.

Sir W. DAVISON: Could the right hon. Gentleman state generally whether or not, owing to this State trading, we lost between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000 in bacon?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I certainly could not answer that question without notice, and I could not answer it at all until I know the result of the arbitration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CAVALRY (STRENGTH).

Major DOUGLAS BROWN: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the War Office to disband three cavalry regiments in the near future; and if he can state briefly the intentions of the War Office as regards the strength of the cavalry branch of the service?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the last part, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement made by my Noble Friend in another place on 27th June last. That statement applies
to all branches of the service, including the cavalry.

HIGHLAND REGIMENTS (FULL DRESS).

Mr. MACPHERSON: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is now contemplated to equip Highland soldiers with the full dress of their respective regiments?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No, Sir; as I have already stated, the general re-introduction of full dress is impracticable at present owing to the expense. The Highland regiments are not worse off in the matter than other line regiments.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that recruiting in this country is carried on on the voluntary system, and that any concession to traditional sentiment is a great aid to that recruiting; and would not the amount represented by the free grant of ammunition and guns to the Free State fully equip many times over our gallant, loyal Highland regiments?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The considerations advanced by the right hon. Gentleman apply equally to all regiments as an argument for the issue of full dress, and I would point out that the Highland regiments have already the advantage of possessing a more picturesque dress than the rest of the Army.

EDINBURGH CASTLE (GUARD).

Mr. MACPHERSON: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to station once again Scottish soldiers in Edinburgh Castle?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: There will be a guard at the Castle as at present, and as for many years past. In view, however, of the antiquated and inconvenient character of the Castle barracks, which would require a large sum to put them into proper repair, and in view also of the impossibility of securing adequate training for a separate detachment there, it is proposed to maintain the existing system, under which the guard is found daily by the unit stationed at Redford barracks. The party forming the guard will come one morning and will be relieved the next.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider putting a company as garrison for Edinburgh
Castle? After all, it is only battalion training that is interfered with, and—[HON MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not the fact that for centuries, as a matter of right, the Castles of Edinburgh and Stirling have had detachments of troops; and, further, is it not the fact that His Majesty the King is there now, and that he is presented with a detachment of men who are badly equipped, and who, consequently, are not in a position to uphold their regimental traditions?

ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (PROMOTION).

Mr. BECKER: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if all officers in the Royal Army Medical Corps eligible for selection to the higher ranks are personally interviewed by the Selection Board; and can he give his assurance that none will be passed over who have not been so interviewed?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The answer is in the negative. I do not think that a system of inviting officers to attend and make out a case for their own promotion would be at all satisfactory, even if all the officers concerned were always available for such attendance, which they are not. It rarely happens, however, that an officer is not known personally to the majority of the selectors.

Mr. BECKER: Is it not the fact that officers who are eligible for the higher ranks are asked to go before the Selection Board, and, if so, why should not they all go?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I do not think there is any foundation for that suggestion, and in any case all officers have a right, under Section 42 of the Army Act, to a hearing if they consider themselves wronged.

ARMY COUNCIL.

Mr. PRINGLE: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of tate for War what are the numbers and total cost of the Army Council now and in 1914; and whether any reductions in the present cost are under consideration?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The number in 1914 was seven, and the cost £17,500. The corresponding figures now are nine, and £28,864. The main cause
of the increase in cost is due to the enhanced rates of pay given to both military and civil services. The whole question of the remuneration of the Services of the Crown is at present under the consideration of Sir Alan Anderson's Committee, and I cannot say whether their recommendations will bear on the point raised in the second part of the question.

MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Lord Weir's Committee on Establishments has made any recommendations as to economies to be effected with regard to the Corps of Military Accountants; and whether the Committee recommends the retention of that body in its present form?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): The hon. and gallant Member was informed on the 5th instant, in reply to a question, that it is not proposed to publish the Report referred to. In these circumstances, I am afraid I cannot answer questions as to specific recommendations which may be conjectured to be included in the Report.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Can the hon. Gentleman give the reasons why the Government are withholding this Report?

Mr. GWYNNE: Because the Report was made with a view to its not being published. It is quite usual for a Cabinet to appoint Committees to report to them.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it suggested that this will reveal important military secrets?

Mr. GWYNNE: Certainly, I think it would.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Are we to understand that this Committee has recommended substantial economies to which the Government are not proposing to give effect?

Mr. GWYNNE: No. I did not give any information about that.

Mr. PRINGLE: Shall we have a statement from the Government as to the economies that will be effected?

Mr. LAWSON: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing any such economies before they are put into operation?

Mr. GWYNNE: That must depend on what the economies are. If they are important economies, the House will, no doubt, have an opportunity of discussing them on the Estimates.

WAR OFFICE (CIVILIAN PERSONNEL).

Sir R. HUTCHISON: 25
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government have under consideration any general reduction of the civilian personnel of the War Office; and whether or not the Report of Lord Weir's Committee on Establishments contains any recommendations to effect such a reduction?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The personnel of the War Office, both military and civil, is being continually reduced, and a monthly Return of these and similar reductions in other public Departments is forwarded to Parliament. The ratio of the size of the civil staff to the volume of the incoming correspondence with which they have to deal is considerably less than before the War. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply which my hon. Friend has just given to No. 24.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my hon. and gallant Friend represent to the Cabinet that there is a widespread desire in the House that the Report of Lord Weir's Committee should be published?

Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: The Report has not yet been considered. I think it is obvious that these Committees will not be able to report so usefully unless their recommendations are treated as confidential.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Will it be possible for the Government to make some statement as to what they propose to do on this Report?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The Report has not yet been considered by the Army Council. No doubt, if it decides to carry out any of the recommendations, the House will have ample opportunity on the Estimates and otherwise of discussion.

CHAPLAINS.

Mr. LUMLEY: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider reducing the number of Army chaplains, which shows a decided increase on 1914 figures, although the
number of effectives is less; and if he has under consideration any proposals to this effect?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The total number of chaplains holding permanent and temporary commissions to-day is 150, as against a total of about 157 permanent and acting chaplains in 1914. There is, therefore, an actual decrease on 1914 figures. Proposals for the normal establishment of the Royal Army Chaplains Department are now under consideration.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: How many of the 1914 chaplains are paid and how many of the present chaplains are paid?

Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: I should like to have notice of that question. There were included in the figures of 1914 39 acting chaplains, and, as far as I know, they were paid.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL (WAGES).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 29.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the average wage of the workmen at Woolwich Arsenal; and whether he has received representations from the Woolwich Board of Guardians that in many cases the wages of men at work at the Arsenal are lower than the amount received from the guardians by an unemployed man and his family?

Mr. GWYNNE: The average weekly wage of men at the Ordnance Factories in the middle of last month was about £3 6s. 11d. I cannot trace that any representations, such as my hon. Friend describes, have been received.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman, having regard to the very many cases of hardship which have arisen, use the good offices of the Secretary of State to receive a deputation in respect to this matter?

Mr. GWYNNE: I will convey the hon. Member's request to my Noble Friend.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it a fact that the average wages are £3 6s. 11d. weekly, but a large number of men have less than £3 a week?

Mr. GWYNNE: I was asked as to the average, and I have given it. If the hon. Member has any further question to put as to the lowest wage, I will give him an answer.

EDINBURGH CASTLE (ONE O'CLOCK GUN).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 30.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider discontinuing the one o'clock gun at Edinburgh Castle and thus save £365 per annum?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: This question has been put under a misapprehension, for which I regret that an answer given by me on the 21st June is responsible. £1 is the approximate cost of a round of blank 18-pounder ammunition, including the brass case, which, however, can be used again. On further inquiry I am now informed that the correct daily cost is in this way reduced to about 5s. 7d., and I also find that the expenses are borne by the Edinburgh Corporation. I may add that the question of increasing the charge so as to secure a louder report is at present under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Will my hon. and gallant Friend communicate with the Edinburgh Corporation with a view to seeing that as we have in London Big Ben, Edinburgh should have Little Benn with chimes?

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH COLONIAL ARMY (STRENGTH).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the ration and bayonet strengths of the French Colonial Army before the War and at the present time; whether he can give the approximate present numbers of trained native soldiers which can be mobilised by the French Government: and whether he has information of preparations being made to largely increase the number of native troops in the French Colonial Empire?

Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: The approximate ration and bayonet strengths in question before the War were 135,000 and 90,000 respectively, and the present strengths are one or two thousand less in each case. The numbers mobilised during the War were 475,000, and the total now available for mobilisation in similar circumstances is probably about the same. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What does the right hon. Gentleman
understand by native troops in this case? Does he base his answer on Moroccan troops, or only on coloured troops from French colonies in Africa?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

MUNITIONS AND STORES.

Colonel GRETTON: 28.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his Department knows the value of the arms, equipment, and stores of all kinds, and also of buildings and land, handed over to the Irish Free State Government and the Irish Provisional Government by the War Office; and will he state what was the total sum of the value to date?

Mr. GWYNNE: I am not yet in a position to furnish the figures, but I hope they will be available in time for inclusion in the White Paper upon the Financial Relations between the British and Free State Governments, which the Treasury have undertaken to present this Session.

Colonel GRETTON: Why is the hon. Gentleman not in a position to give the figures?

Mr. GWYNNE: Our information is not complete by any means.

Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand that the War Office handed over valuable property to the Free State before it was valued?

Mr. GWYNNE: I understand that is the case as regards a considerable amount of the property referred to.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Was this property not valued at the time?

Mr. GWYNNE: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to arms and ammunition sent from this country, I understand it was obtained through the Disposal Board.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Why was the Disposal Board used as an agency for handing over these stores? Is not the function of the Disposal Board to dispose of these assets for the advantage of the nation and not to hand them over?

Mr. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman should address that question to the Treasury, who are responsible for the Disposal Board. I may add that as the
Public Accounts Committee are now inquiring into the matter, it is not desirable to raise the question in the House at present.

INCOME TAX.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a man living in England and owning property in the Free State has to pay on his Irish property Income Tax to the Irish Free State at the rate of 5s. in the £ less 2s. 6d., the rebate allowed under the Dominion Income Tax Agreement; having therefore paid on his Irish income at the rate of 2s. 6d., has he then to pay upon it again in this country at the rate of 4s. 6d., a total of 7s. in the £; in the case of a man living in the Irish Free State and owning property in England, does he deduct 2s. 3d. (half the English rate of tax) for the Dominion allowance and then pay 5s. in the £ to the Irish Free State, a total Income Tax of 7s. 3d. in the 2; and can steps be taken to obviate this?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. Arrangements have been made under which relief is allowable both from British Income Tax and from Irish Free State Income Tax on doubly-taxed income; with the broad result that the taxpayer is called upon to bear tax on such income at the higher of the two rates proper to his case, but no more. The arrangements are unavoidably complicated, and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement dealing with this matter in greater detail. I should add, however, that the British authorities, and, as I understand, the Irish Free State authorities also, will make every endeavour to assist taxpayers in obtaining the relief to which they are entitled, and, in any case where it is possible, to grant the appropriate measure of relief without troubling the taxpayer to formulate a special claim.

Following is the statement:

Relief in respect of the double taxation of income between this country and the Irish Free State (just as between this country and other Dominions) proceeds by reduction of the rate of Income Tax to which a particular taxpayer would normally be liable and not by way of a
deduction of any lump sum from the actual tax normally assessable.

It will be recalled that both British Income Tax and Super-tax and Irish Free State Income Tax and Super-tax are graduated taxes and different individuals bear different effective rates according to the circumstances of their cases.

In order to grant the proper relief from double taxation it is necessary in the case of any individual to determine the rates at which that individual pays British tax and Irish Free State tax respectively. An individual's rate of British Income Tax is determined by dividing the amount of Income Tax payable by him on his taxable income (i.e., his assessable income less personal and family allowances) by that taxable income. An individual's rate of British Super-tax is determined by dividing the amount of Super-tax payable by him by his total income as estimated for Super-tax purposes.

An individual's rates of Irish Free State Income Tax and Super-tax are determined on similar lines.

Where the taxpayer is liable to Super-tax his Income Tax and Super-tax rates are added together to arrive at the rate of tax appropriate to his case for the purpose of determining the measure of relief allowable.

Relief is granted from British Income Tax in respect of doubly taxed income at the lower of the two rates following:

(1) The rate of Irish Free State tax appropriate to the taxpayer; and
(2) one-half the rate of British tax appropriate to the taxpayer.

Taking what is at the present time the normal case, that is the case where the taxpayer's rate of Irish Free State tax exceeds his rate of relief from British Income Tax, relief from Irish Free State Income Tax is allowable at the lower of the two rates following:

(1)The rate of relief allowable from British Income Tax; and
(2) the excess of the rate of Irish Free State tax appropriate to the taxpayer over the rate of relief allowable from British Income Tax.

The relief applies in the case of a person who pays both British Income Tax
and Irish Free State Income Tax in respect of the same income, irrespective of that person's place of residence.

The following instances illustrate the working of the provision. A person whose British rate of tax is, say, 4s. 2d. in the £, and whose Irish Free State rate of tax is, say, 4s. 8d. in the £, would, as respects the part of his income in respect of which he pays both British and Irish Free State Income Tax, be allowed relief from British Income Tax at 2s. 1d. in the £ (one-half his British rate, being less than his Irish Free State rate) and relief from Irish Free State Income Tax at 2s. 1d. in the £ (the rate of relief from British Income Tax, being less than the excess of his Irish Free State rate over the British rate of relief). After allowance of the reliefs, he ultimately bears British tax at the rate of 2s. 1d. in the £ and Irish Free State tax at the rate of 2s. 7d. in the £, i.e., a total rate of 4s. 8d. in the £.

Again, a person liable to British Super-tax with a British rate (for Income Tax and Super-tax combined) of, say, 5s. 6d. in the £, and an Irish Free State rate of, say, 4s. 10d. in the £, would be allowed relief from British Income Tax at 2s. 9d. in the £ (one-half his British rate) and relief from Irish Free State Income Tax at 2s. 1d. in the £ (the excess of his Irish Free State rate over the British rate of relief), and he would ultimately bear in all tax at the rate of 5s. 6d. in the £ (namely, 2s. 9d. British Tax and 2s. 9d. Irish Free State Tax).

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SHERIFF CLERKS' SERVICE.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he can see his way to carry out the recommendations of Lord Blackburn's Committee with regard to the remuneration to be given to sheriff clerks and deputy sheriff clerks?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): A scheme for the reorganisation of the sheriff clerk service on lines recommended by Lord Blackburn's Committee has been the subject of negotiation with the associations concerned for some time. The matter is being actively pursued.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Will my hon. and learned Friend have special consideration, in dealing with this Report, for very old servants who have served for a lifetime?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that these fees were increased in order to add to the remuneration of sheriff clerks and sheriff clerk deputies, and will he consider whether an addition to these fees could be made?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The amount paid in bonuses since the fees were raised has very largely exceeded the amount which the Treasury has gained as a result of the increase of fees. Possibly my hon. Friend is aware that there was a meeting at Edinburgh last week, at which representatives of the Treasury and the Scottish Office and these officials met together. Proposals were put before them and they are at this moment considering them. I do not think I can do anything further.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether these negotiations are carried on by individuals who have some knowledge of Scotland and not by Treasury clerks who are not well informed as to the position?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: They are being carried on by people who have a very accurate knowledge of Scotland.

NORWEGIAN HERRINGS.

Major WARING: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that Scottish herring fishermen have found their calling seriously hampered by markets being flooded with herrings from Norway; that a desire is expressed that these fish should be marked when manufactured into kippers and reboxed; and whether he will initiate legislation in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY for HEALTH, SCOTLAND (Captain Elliot): The importation of Norwegian herrings takes place mainly during the spring months, when herrings are not being caught on any great scale from British ports. The Norwegian imports are landed in England and are chiefly sold in England. Their competition probably has some effect on the price realised for the Scottish catch during the last few weeks of the Scottish
winter fishing, but the quantities imported have been substantially less during recent years than they were before the War. My Noble Friend has no information as to the prevalence of a desire such as is mentioned in the second part of the question. He does not propose to initiate legislation in the matter.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these herrings are brought in as early as February, in the middle of the herring fishing, and that they cause a great deal of difference in the price of herrings obtained by the Scottish fishermen, and that strong feeling is felt by the Scottish fishermen?

Mr. HARRIS: Are not these cheap herrings much appreciated in large cities?

LAND SETTLEMENT SCHEMES.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 38.
asked the Under Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether an instruction was issued by the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture, on or about the 16th March, 1922, directing the member of the Board in charge of land settlement schemes to communicate with the Scottish Land and Property Federation as to schemes proposed to be initiated, with a view to their making suggestions or representations on such schemes and to advise the federation of the Board's decisions on such schemes; whether the then Secretary for Scotland authorised the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture to give such instruction; and how many such communications have been made to the federation?

Captain ELLIOT: In May, 1922, an instruction was given by the Chairman of the Board, with the knowledge and approval of the then Secretary for Scotland, authorising an intimation to be made to the federation of the Board's wish to initiate a scheme in any particular district with an inquiry whether the members of the federation have any suitable land in the district which they would be prepared to make available for a scheme. The instruction provides that any suggestions or representations by the federation are to be considered, but that no delay will be allowed to take place on this account. The federation are to be advised of the Board's decision as to proceedings with a scheme. Communications of this kind have been made to the federation in three cases.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Is it not the case that it was denied in this House months ago that such an instruction was issued? Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain the discrepancy between that answer and the reply he has now given?

Captain ELLIOT: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The question put some months ago was whether schemes were submitted to the federation for their approval or modification. The instruction that was issued was that the Board desiring to buy land should inquire of people who had land to sell—a totally different thing, as the hon. Member will see.

PARISH COUNCILS.

Mr. MILLAR: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether, in view of the widespread anxiety and apprehension created by the Report of Scottish Board of Health consultative council recommending the abolition of the parish councils in Scotland and of the smaller burghs and public health authorities, he can give an assurance that no steps are at present contemplated to give effect to the views of the consultative council, and that the fullest opportunity will be afforded to the parish councils and burghs and other public health authorities to express their views before any decision is arrived at?

Captain ELLIOT: I am not aware that the publication of the Report referred to has created anxiety and apprehension, but the hon. and learned Member may rest assured that no decision will be taken on the matters referred to without full opportunity to the local authorities mentioned to express their views.

Mr. MILLAR: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give an assurance that his Department is not prepared to take any action on the lines of that Report at the present time?

Captain ELLIOT: Not without consideration of the local authorities' views.

CHURCH ENDOWMENTS.

Sir H. CRAIK: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government, either before the Recess or in an Autumn Session, to propose legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on the Endowments of the Church in Scotland presided over by Lord Haldane?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): This matter is at the present moment under the consideration of the Government, and if my right hon. Friend will be good enough to put down a question for the middle of next week, I hope to be in a position to give him a definite reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

EMPTY HOUSES (SCOTLAND).

Mr. SULLIVAN: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health in what counties or burghs are the 51,000 empty houses that he stated we had in Scotland?

Captain ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the Reports on the Census of Scotland, 1921. These give the numbers of unoccupied houses in the various districts in Scotland according to the census taken in June of that year.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman acting fairly to the House when he makes a statement which refers to the 1921 Census? It is now 1923.

Captain ELLIOT: Yes. If the hon. Member will do me the honour to read my remarks, he will see that I stated, before giving the figures, that they were the figures of the June Census, 1921. The whole discussion was on the June figures of 1921, as originally quoted by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon).

Mr. SULLIVAN: Would it be possible to circulate the information to hon. Members? We want to know where the empty houses are.

Captain ELLIOT: The figures are printed in full, and hon. Members can get them. It would be a needless expense to circulate them.

Mr. SHINWELL: When making a statement in regard to the amount of housing available in Scotland for the working classes, will the hon. Gentleman state what numbers of houses are available to-day for the working classes?

Captain ELLIOT: If the hon. Member will do me the honour of reading what I said, he will find that I specifically referred to the figures as for the June Census, 1921.

Mr. HARDIE: It has gone round in Scotland from the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there are 51,000 houses that could be used by the working classes.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. MILLAR: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether his attention has been directed to the high cost of building materials in Scotland and the desire of the local authorities to prevent the prices of such materials rising to a prohibitive figure; and whether he is prepared to assist the local authorities in coming to an arrangement in each area to fix a fair schedule of rates for the materials they require, and to promote conferences among the local authorities for that purpose?

Captain ELLIOT: As regards the first part of the question, examination of the Interim Report of the Committee on Prices of Building Materials (Cmd. 1908), presented on 27th June last, does not indicate that prices of building materials in Scotland are on the average higher than those ruling in England and Wales. As regards the second part of the question, I am not certain as to what assistance the hon. and learned Member has in mind, but I shall be glad to consider any representations that may be made to me by the local authorities concerned.

Mr. MILLAR: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman do anything to encourage common action among all the local authorities, so that they can level things down in regard to the prices of building materials by adjusting a smaller ratio for each area?

Captain ELLIOT: If the hon. and learned member can suggest any way by which we can encourage such action, I should be glad to consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

GLASGOW AND EDINBUURGH ROAD.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health what progress is being made with the proposed scheme for a new road between Glasgow and Edinburgh; and what action the Government propose to
take in view of the promise of the Government to provide relief work for the unemployed in the Clyde area?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to answer this question. Officers of my Department have completed a survey and a detailed estimate of the cost of a scheme for improving the communications by road between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Frequent conferences have been held with representatives of the local authorities concerned, but they have not yet reached agreement as to the apportionment of their share of the cost. As regards the second part of the question, two important schemes for the relief of unemployment in the Clyde area are likely to be put in hand at an early date with the assistance of 50 per cent. grants from the Road Fund. These are the constructior of a new road from Glasgow to Duntocher by the Glasgow Corporation, and of a new road from Duntocher to Bowling by the Dumbarton County Council. Tenders for these two projects have been invited and are now under consideration by the two local authorities referred to.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the case that the answer in regard to the Glasgow-Edinburgh road is precisely similar to the answer which the hon. Gentleman gave me three months ago, and can he not hold out a reasonable hope that the road will be proceeded with?

Colonel ASHLEY: That may be so. I have not the answer exactly in my mind. The fault is not with the Ministry of Transport. We offered to pay half the cost. The difficulty is to get local authorities to decide how they will make up the balance. An officer of my Department is going up to-night, and is to have a conference with the local authorities to-morrow.

ROAD RATES (HIGHLAND COUNTIES).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that, although the ratepayers in the Highland counties of. Scotland have to pay high rates for the upkeep of roads for the benefit of motorists, they are frequently unable to obtain for themselves the ordinary transport facilities which are necessary for the development of their land; and when the Board of Agriculture will be prepared to give favourable consideration to the plans for the construction of the Badidarroch-
Ardroe road which has been strongly recommended by the Sutherland Road Board?

Captain ELLIOT: I am aware of the position regarding road rates in the Highland Counties. Owing to the demands upon their funds, the Board of Agriculture cannot offer a grant-in-aid of the construction of the Badidarroch-Ardoe road at present. They will again consider this case along with other similar applications during next financial year.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: How soon can these people make fresh applications?

Captain ELLIOT: They can make fresh applications next year when the funds are again distributed.

NEW ROADS (TREE PLANTING).

Viscount CURZON: 41.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether steps can be taken in conjunction with the Department of Woods and Forests to plant the most suitable and attractive trees alongside all new roads and by-pass roads, and in cased where roads are widened to secure the replanting of trees destroyed in the process as far as possible?

Colonel ASHLEY: I fully share the hon. and gallant Member's desire that roadside tree planting should be extended in suitable cases and so far as funds permit. I have been in consultation for some time past with experts on the subject as to the best species to adopt. In the case of the new Great West Road, I have already agreed a tree-planting scheme with the Middlesex County Council.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman taken into consideration the planting of roads with apple trees, as is done in France and Germany?

Colonel ASHLEY: Will my hon. and gallant Friend ensure that the apples will not be stolen?

LONDON TRAFFIC.

Mr. HARRIS: 42.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he has prepared a scheme for dealing with London traffic; what that scheme is; and whether the
House of Commons will have an opportunity to discuss it?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton on 2nd July, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the House to have an opportunity of discussing this scheme, or is it going to be done by the action of the Department?

Colonel ASHLEY: Any scheme to deal with London traffic will have to be embodied in a Bill and will require legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY COMMISSION.

Mr. HARRIS: 43.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether the Electricity Commissioners have issued a Report on their work; and will such Report be submitted to Parliament?

Colonel ASHLEY: The Commissioners have issued two Annual Reports which are on sale as Stationery Office publications. Their third Annual Report is in course of preparation. The Electricity (Supply) Acts do not provide for the submission of a Report by the Commissioners to Parliament. Under Section 30 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, however, the Minister of Transport is required to present to Parliament on or before 1st July in each year a Report of the applications to and proceedings before him under the Acts. Each of the Reports presented by the Minister contains a summary of the work of the Commissioners during the periods covered by the Reports. The last Report of the Minister was presented to the House of Commons on 28th June, 1923.

Mr. HARRIS: Are these Commissioners responsible to a Government Department or to Parliament, or are they a law to themselves? Should their Report be issued to Parliament?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that these Commissioners are holding up a lot of work by refusing loans?

Colonel ASHLEY: The Commissioners are responsible to me and I am responsible to Parliament.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that the effect of the Commissioners' work is to prevent a great deal of the chaos that previously existed?

Colonel ASHLEY: They are doing very valuable work indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE CALLS (REGISTRATION).

Lieut.-Colonel STOTT: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among telephone subscribers with the present method of registering the number of telephone calls; that a machine has been invented by Messrs. Anderson and Hunts-worth which registers the effective calls on the subscribers' premises; and whether he proposes to adopt and fit these machines?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The present method of registering calls, which is the same as that adopted in America, is the most satisfactory that has yet been devised. The invention referred to has already received careful consideration. It is not proposed to adopt it, as, apart from other serious drawbacks, it would place a prohibitive drag on the telephonists' work, and the apparatus and method of working it at the subscribers' premises are too complex.

FOREIGN MAILS DESPATCH (SCOTLAND).

Mr. ROBERT MURRAY: 56.
asked the Postmaster-General it he is aware that manufacturers, merchants, and other persons in Scotland are greatly inconvenienced in their business by the lack of any official statement of the days and hours of despatch for mails intended for abroad, and especially for Canada and the United States, and that the Post Office weekly list, for which an annual charge of 30s. is made, gives the sailings from London only; and if he can see his way to have a similar list issued showing the days and hours of despatch in Scotland?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not aware that inconvenience is caused through the lack of official information concerning the despatch of mails from Scotland for places abroad. Notices giving the local times of closing the mails
are exhibited at the post offices of the principal centres, such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee, and lists of despatches, based on official information, are published in "The Scotsman," "The Glasgow Herald," and other leading Scottish newspapers. In this respect, Scottish towns are as well off as provincial towns in England. I fear that it would not be practicable to publish a separate Post Office Daily List for Scotland.

WIRELESS STATIONS (LICENCES).

Mr. BECKER: 58.
asked the Postmaster-General how many private companies, other than the Marconi Company, have applied for a licence to erect high-power wireless stations in this country; and in how many cases and under what conditions have such licences been granted?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Apart from the Marconi Company, only one private company has recently applied for a licence to erect a high-power station in this country. This application is under consideration. No such licence has even been issued for commercial purposes to any private company other than the Marconi Company, although licences in respect of high-power stations for experimental purposes were issued some years ago to three other companies.

Mr. LEACH: Will the right hon Gentleman say whether the Marconi dinner to Members of this House frightened off all other applicants?

TELEPHONE INSTALLATIONS (EAST LONDON).

Major ATTLEE: 59.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, although a contract for a telephone installation was signed by Mr. Williams, of 123, Burdett Road, E.3, on 2nd June, and connection promised by 23rd June, this subscriber is still awaiting the completion of the service; that dissatisfaction exists in East London owing to these long delays; and whether, in view of the large number of men unemployed, he will engage additional men in order to expedite the connection of subscribers?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Before the service could be provided for Mr. Williams, a new telephone cable had to be laid and unexpected difficulties in connection with this work prevented effect being given to the promise made to him. His circuit was completed on the 7th
instant. The number of men engaged on telephone construction work in East London has been steadily increasing for some time past and will continue to be increased as occasion requires.

Mr. MUIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not an uncommon complaint in different parts of the country, and will he make inquiry into the matter and see whether, by speeding up, the connections can be completed more satisfactorily?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I watch the statistics of completion of telephone installations very carefully.

CASH-ON-DELIVERY SCHEME.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General when he hopes to give details of the cash-on-delivery scheme in respect of parcels post; and whether he contemplates increasing the permissible weight of parcels to be carried?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have considered this proposal especially in relation to agriculture, and I regret that while fully sympathising with the object in view I do not see my way to introduce a service at a cost which would render it of any appreciable value to the agricultural interests. It would be necessary to charge a minimum fee of 6d. or 7d. a parcel in addition to the postage, and this, combined with the difficulties inherent in any attempt to discriminate in the nature of the contents of parcels would, I am convinced, make the institution of such a service of no practical value to the agriculturalists.
I may mention that the chief value of a cash-on-delivery service has been found to be for small parcels the contents of which are of high value. Agricultural produce is relatively bulky and of low value. I shall watch the result of the recent reduction in the parcel post rate with a view to further reduction if the business warrants it. I have no evidence that there is any general demand for a cash-on-delivery system other than for agriculture, but, on the other hand, I have received many representations on behalf of the smaller shopkeepers in the contrary sense. There is no intention of increasing the permissible weight of parcels to be sent by parcel post.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (CABINET COMMITTEE).

Sir W. de FRECE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet Committee on Unemployment is ready to consider any views on the subject which may be submitted to it by responsible and representative public authorities; and whether, in that case, he will state the procedure to be adopted by them?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I should be glad if such authorities would send in their observations in writing to the Secretary to the Cabinet Committee on Unemployment at the Ministry of Health.

Sir W. de FRECE: Are the views of local authorities specifically invited?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE PENSIONS FUND.

Mr. EDMUND TURTON: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a letter was addressed by the County Councils' Association to the Secretary to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the 20th February, 1922, applying to the Commissioners to allow such portion of the County Fund as is equivalent to the amount of capital transferred from the Police Pensions Fund to be regarded as a police superannuation fund for the purposes of Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1921; whether he is aware that, despite further letters written on the 29th September, 1922, and the 2nd January, 1923, the association have not received any communication from the Commissioners other than a letter written on the 25th November, 1922, to the effect that the question had been referred to their solicitor; and will he say when the association may expect to receive a definite reply?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A definite reply has now been sent to the association.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC REVENUE (SCOTTISH CONTRIBUTION).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to state what proportion of the public revenue was derived during the
year 1922–23 from Scottish sources; and what proportion of the estimated revenue of the current year he expects to derive from the same sources?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that figures for 1922–23 will not be available for over a month. The proportion of this year's estimated revenue derived from Scotland would probably not vary very materially from last year's figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHISKY EXPORTS (ALLOWANCES).

Mr. GARDINER: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the bonus or allowances of 3d. per gallon on each gallon of whisky exported from Scotland amounted to in the years 1913, 1914, 1921, and 1922, respectively; and do these totals include whisky sent from Scotland and shipped abroad at English ports?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The information requested is not available, but the amounts paid in Scotland in the calendar years 1913, 1914, 1921 and 1922 in respect of exported British plain spirits (which includes whisky) were as follow:



£


1913
96,724


1914
93,969


1921
66,041


1922
57,148


These amounts represent allowances actually paid in Scotland irrespective of whether the spirits were exported from a Scottish or an English port.

Mr. GARDINER: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer who arranged the bonus or allowance of 3d. per gallon on each gallon of exported whisky; at what date was it arranged; what is the total sum given to exporters since the bonus was instituted; and what was the exact reason for giving this bonus?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The allowance granted on the exportation of British plain spirits (which expression includes whisky) was first authorised in 1860 by the Act 23 and 24 Vict. c. 129, "in consideration of the loss and hindrance caused by Excise Regulations in the distillation … of spirits in the United Kingdom …" The rate of allowance was fixed at 3d. per gallon by the Finance Act, 1902. Information as to
the amount of allowance paid since 1860 is not available.

Mr. GARDINER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the whisky exported is exported, not by the distillers, but by the blenders? Are they entitled to the 3d. if they have done no work therefor?

Viscountess ASTOR: Are they not now making such a sum from rum-running that they can do without this bonus?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think that the last question arises. Under the old Act the allowance was payable to the exporter, whoever he was.

Mr. GARDINER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the large amount of money granted to the exporters is sufficient to pay the costs of their businesses, and that they are making many millions of money? Should not this money go to the Exchequer?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR BOND POLICIES.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 52.
asked the. Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Prudential Assurance Company has not appealed against the recent decision of the Hull County Court that it should refund the whole of the premiums collected by it on a Five Per Cent. War Bond Policy because these had been obtained by means of fraudulent misrepresentation, he can now say whether the Public Prosecutor intends taking any action, having regard to the state of affairs disclosed by this case?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The matter is still under consideration.

Mr. THOMSON: How much longer is this important matter to be considered?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think until a satisfactory conclusion is reached

Oral Answers to Questions — RICHBOROUGH PORT.

Mr. BRIANT: 54.
asked the Financia. Secretary to the Treasury if Richborough Port has been again taken over by the Government; if any and, if so, what portion of the original price has been actually paid?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet on the 13th December last.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONED WIDOWS (SICKNESS GRANTS).

Sir W. de FRECE: 63.
asked the Minister of Pensions the amount which has been saved by the withdrawal of the sickness grants to pensioned widows and children in special cases; and how much money was actually awarded under this head during the time the concession was in existence?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Craig): It is estimated that the amount which will be saved during the current financial year is, approximately, £2,500. The Regulation in its recent form became operative in June, 1920, and the total expenditure thereunder, up to the close of the last financial year, was £33,000.

Sir W. de FRECE: Who assists these pensioned widows when the grant has been withdrawn?

HON. MEMBERS: The Guardians!

Sir W. de FRECE: 64.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many sickness grants, falling due for renewal after the date of 14th June, 1923, when no further applications were received, have actually been renewed since that date; and, if so, whether he will state the aggregate amount of the renewed grants thus made as compared with the amount of the actual original grants?

Captain CRAIG: During the period in question, 41 application for renewal were received, of which two were rejected and 39 accepted. The aggregate amount of the 39 renewed grants is £9 7s. 10d. per week, as against £10 7s. 4d. per week, the aggregate amount of the 41 original grants.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

DOMINION CATTLE (IMPORTS).

Mr. LEACH: 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if it is his intention to in-
troduce legislation to place all the other Dominions in the same position as Canada now is in regard to the importation of cattle?

The MINISTER of AGRICURTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): The Government have informed the Dominions other than Canada that, if the question of removing the restrictions regarding the import of cattle from their territories is raised at the forthcoming Imperial Conference and a mutually satisfactory arrangement reached, legislation will be introduced to give effect to such arrangement. The general question of the restrictions on the import of livestock into the various parts of the Empire, including the United Kingdom, is being placed on the agenda of the forthcoming Imperial Economic Conference as a subject for discussion.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the policy of the Government on this important question, and who is to decide as to what is a mutually satisfactory arrangement?

Mr. RILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of feeling in Australia against the distinction drawn between Australia and Canada in this matter?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am quite aware of that, and that is the reason why we are anxious to discuss the matter with the Dominions.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I have an answer to my question? Who is to determine the mutually satisfactory arrangement?

Sir R. SANDERS: I think the last answer I gave answers that question.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the agricultural interests be consulted in contra-distinction to what happened last year when Sir A. Boscawen made the arrangement?

Sir R. SANDERS: That has already been done.

CROPS (DAMAGE BY VERMIN).

Mr. GARDINER: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the urgent need of protection for farmers from the damage done by rabbits from adjoining woods and covers; and will he consider restoring powers to occupiers to kill rabbits and similar vermin granted during the War?

Sir R. SANDERS: A private Member's Bill dealing with the destruction of rabbits and rooks has been read a Second time in this House. In view of the pressure of other business, I am afraid that it is not possible to give special facilities for its passage into law.

Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it would be better to give facilities for a Bill of this sort, rather than the Merchandise Marks Bill?

Sir R. SANDERS: No, Sir.

Mr. HARDIE: Could not some of the restrictions at present imposed on poaching be removed and poachers given a free hand?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR SHIPBUILDING PLANT (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).

Mr. SHORT: 67.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether during the War and Admiralty control of shipbuilding, in order to accelerate the building of ships, it was decided to defray 40 per cent. of the cost of introducing and extending pneumatic riveting and caulking plant in the shipyards; and, if so, will he state the total expenditure involved and the firms to whom payment was made?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. In order to increase the facilities for the output of tonnage of all kinds for war purposes, shipbuilding and engineering firms and other firms concerned in the equipment of ships were urged during the War to extend their premises and increase their plant, and an arrangement was made that up to a maximum of 40 per cent. of this special cost would be paid by the Government. Of the total amount so paid, it is estimated that between £150,000 and £200,000 was in respect of pneumatic riveting and caulking plant, which was distributed among a large number of firms.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House a list of the firms who benefited?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I could. It would be a very long one; but if the hon. Member is interested, I can give it.

Mr. SHINWELL: Have the Government control over the material for which they paid?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The arrangement was made a great many years ago.

Mr. SHINWELL: Have they any control over the material?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If the hon. Gentleman wants to know what is the condition of the plant, he should put down a question.

Mr. HARDIE: Who owns the plant?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The firms.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH CHURCH COMMISSION.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the fact that the total revenue of the Welsh Church Commissioners is insufficient to meet their expenditure and that the commission now paid for the collection of tithes is excessive, he will consider the advisability of instructing the Commissioners to invite tenders for such collection with a view to reducing the cost?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): I am informed by the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Wales that it is not correct to say that their present total revenue is insufficient to meet their present expenditure. They also inform me that in the present stage of their management and investigation, they do not see how they can usefully adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, nor can they admit that in the circumstances the commission paid by them to their agents for tithe collection is excessive.

Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a number of applications from firms offering to do this work at one half of the present cost?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Gentleman asked a question on this subject some days ago, when he said he would give me the names of those firms, but he has not done so.

Mr. PRINGLE: Will it be all right now that Sir Arthur Boscawen has got an appointment?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME OFFICE VOTE (FACTORY INSPECTOR'S REPORT).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 69.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Factory Inspector's Report will be presented and circulated before the Home Office Vote is taken?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This Report, which is now being printed, will be expedited as much as practicable, but I regret it is not possible to issue it before Thursday next, when the Home Office Vote is to be taken.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not highly unusual to take the Home Office Vote before printing and circulating the Factory Inspectors' Report?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think it has been done before. I do not mind the Home Office Vote being postponed.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Has it not been the case for the last few years that the Report has been printed before the Home Office Vote has been taken? Surely hon. Members should have this Report in their hands before discussing the Vote?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not the Home Office Office but the Factory Inspector's report about which my noble Friend is asking.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I wish to know about the relation between the two.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is not what was put in the Noble Lord's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE CIVIL SERVANTS (WAR BONUS).

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: (by Private Notice) asked whether the Postmaster-General can yet say what steps the Government intend to take to carry out the Sutton judgment, and what steps they intend to take regarding other ex-service civil servants who claim that they also should receive the Civil Service war bonus?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Government have carefully considered the position created by the judgment of the House of Lords in the Sutton case. They are advised that the judgment is clearly applicable to men who enlisted in the special sections of the Royal Engi-
neers after the announcement that full civil pay would be allowed and on or before the 7th September, 1915, that is to say, the date when the notification was published that men serving in these sections would not be entitled to war bonus. The Government propose to treat on the same footing all men who enlisted or were called up for service as reservists or territorials in the special sections prior to the latter date, other than men who were transferred from other units of the Army. Instructions have accordingly been given to pay the amounts due to the men in these categories. A Supplementary Estimate will be presented to the House immediately. As regards men who enlisted in the special sections subsequent to 7th September, 1915, and single men who enlisted in other units of the Army, irrespective of the date of enlistment, the Government are advised that the legal position is extremely doubtful. Having regard to the large sums of money involved, the Government have come to the conclusion that in the interests of the taxpayer it is necessary that an authoritative legal decision should be obtained as to the rights of the several categories of men who may be affected. They propose, therefore, to give facilities for obtaining as speedy a decision as possible from the House of Lords upon test cases representative of the several categories, and they are prepared to authorise the payment, whatever be the result, of the taxed costs of the claimants, as between party and party, entailed in obtaining the decisions required. I am advised that the decisions may be expected before the end of the year if the cases are expedited as the Government proposes.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any estimate has been made as to the cost of the legal proceedings?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The payments which are now to be authorised will amount to about £1,250,000 or rather more and the legal proceedings cannot cost more than £2,000 or £3,000—or £5,000 at the outside. Having regard to the very large amounts in question, it is thought right that these proceedings should be taken and facilitated.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that the legal proceedings are so unusually cheap?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It depends, of course, upon what is done. If these are taken as test cases and expedited, I am told it may well be that £5,000 will cover all the expense.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SAVINGS AND HOUSING BANKS).

Mr. LEACH: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to establish and maintain savings and housing banks, and for other purposes in connection therewith.
I have received some considerable encouragement for introducing this Bill from some answers which were given last Friday by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when this very subject was under discussion for a short while. The Financial Secretary informed the House himself that if any private Member would be enterprising enough to put down a Bill for the purposes indicated in my own Measure, he would see to it that the Treasury would give it careful consideration. This Bill empowers county boroughs and any combination of local authorities representing a population of not less than 150,000 to establish and maintain local savings banks. In every case it also provides that the Treasury shall be responsible for the Regulations in regard to the conduct of those banks. In addition, it provides powers for the setting up of housing departments enabling the municipalities to make advances on mortgage to depositors in order to help them to acquire their own houses.
In 1916 the Government of that day passed an Act called the Municipal Savings Banks Act, but unfortunately they hedged it round with so many restrictions as to make it impossible for any local authority to conduct a savings bank at a profit. For instance, they placed a limit of £200 on the deposits, and they restricted the depositors to wage workers, who had to make their deposits through the agency of their employers, who deducted the sums weekly, by agreement, from their wages. The banks had also to hand over to the Government the whole of the sums collected in this way, and they were grievously restricted in the amount of interest which the Government paid to them for the money. Finally, as a last restriction, probably
the worst, the banks had to commit suicide three months after the War. In view of those restrictions, it was not at all surprising to find that only one corporation in the country had the courage to adopt this Act. Birmingham did it as an act of patriotism. They were prepared to lose money, and, of course, did lose money, and in course of time they ended their bank as ordered by the law.
In 1919 they came again, this time for the purpose of obtaining, through a private Bill, real powers to conduct a real municipal savings bank. Fortunately indeed for their case, there exists in Birmingham a very famous clan with the surname Chamberlain. That famous clan for generations have had to do with the municipal activities of that great city, and I do not think it is going too far to say that they have enabled the shield of municipalism to remain clean and magnificent wherever they have had anything to do with it. The present Minister of Health is a member of that famous clan, a distinguished member, and it was through his help that the real powers to conduct a savings bank were obtained by the City of Birmingham. Virtually, the powers so obtained are the powers for which I am asking in my Bill to-day. What is good for Birmingham is surely good for the rest of the country, and, indeed, it has been very good for Birmingham. Four years' experience of the working of these powers has made Birmingham very proud of its municipal bank. Their open accounts have grown from 7,000 to 104,000: they are every month in the habit of receiving £200,000 in deposits and, indeed, their whole deposits come to some £3,000,000 they pay their depositors 3½ per cent.; and their profit last year was £9,690. A few days ago—on 18th June, in fact—they were opening a new branch, and the Minister of Health himself went down to participate in the thanksgiving ceremony. He made a proud and very significant speech on that occasion, and I shall take this opportunity of reading a sentence or two, because of the power of his arguments in favour of the Bill that I am seeking to get adopted by this House. On that occasion the Minister of Health said:
Well, it was a very well-managed bank; it had certain obvious advantages compared with the Post Office in the facilities which it afforded, especially in the nature of withdrawals. … The conclusion we had
come to was that the secret of the success lay in the fact that it was associated with our municipal system. 'I believe the depositors feel special confidence in the bank,' he added. They know that there is the security of the rates behind the bank, that there is a vigilant and watchful committee of the council looking after it, and it seems to me that this connection with the municipal system gives it a unique character and makes a special appeal to the working classes. You may call it Socialism if you like; I have never been frightened by a name. … It will be a good thing for this country if it should be further extended.'
That is exactly what I seek to do. I would like to quote that speech in full, because it is so admirable for my purposes. Many corporations have been either promoting private Bills in order to get these powers or adopting Clauses for their next Bills for the same purpose, but I find that the Local Legislation Committees upstairs are distinctly timid about giving these powers, because, as I believe, they want to see the national Legislature tackle this matter and introduce a general Bill upon it. A day or two ago the Institute of Municipal Treasurers, at their annual conference, similarly endorsed the wisdom of this proposal, and I have incorporated in my Bill the recommended minimum population to the area which they have laid down

as being a sound financial proposition. I trust that the House will assent to this Bill.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Leach, Mr. Charles Buxton, Sir Ernest Hiley, Mr. Morel, Mr. Lees-Smith, and Mr. Snowden.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SAVINGS AND HOUSING BANKS) BILL,

"to enable local authorities to establish and maintain savings and housing banks, and for other purposes in connection therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 148.

Division No. 280.]
AYES.
[4.2 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Doyle, N. Grattan


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Butcher, Sir John George
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Ednam, Viscount


Apsley, Lord
Butt, Sir Alfred
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Button, H. S.
Ellis, R. G.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Cadogan, Major Edward
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Astor, Viscountess
Cautley, Henry Strother
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Barnston, Major Harry
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Flanagan, W. H.


Becker, Harry
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Clayton, G. C.
Forestier-Walker, L.


Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Frece, Sir Walter de


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Furness, G. J.


Berry, Sir George
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Gardiner, James


Betterton, Henry B.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Garland, C. S.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Cope, Major William
Gates, Percy


Blundell, F. N.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Goff, Sir R. Park


Brass, Captain W.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gretton, Colonel John


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bruford, R.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Halstead, Major D.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Harrison, F. C.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Harvey, Major S. E.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shepperson, E. W.


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Shipwright, Captain D.


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Singleton, J. E.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. C.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Skelton, A. N.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Murchison, C. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Nall, Major Joseph
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stanley, Lord


Houfton, John Plowright
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Hudson, Capt. A.
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton


Hughes, Collingwood
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hume, G. H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Suqden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Paget, T. G.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Pease, William Edwin
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Tubbs, S. W.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Penny, Frederick George
Turton, Edmund Russborough


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wallace, Captain E.


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Jephcott, A. R.
Peto, Basil E.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Philipson, Mabel
Waring, Major Walter


Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wells, S. R.


King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Privett, F. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lamb, J. Q.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Winterton, Earl


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Raine, W.
Wise, Frederick


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Lorden, John William
Remnant, Sir James
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Lorimer, H. D.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Lougher, L.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Lumley, L. R.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)



Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel




the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Kenyon, Barnet


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Fairbairn, R. R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Attlee, C. R.
Falconer, J.
Lansbury, George


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Foot, Isaac
Lawson, John James


Barnes, A.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Leach, W.


Batey, Joseph
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central).
Lee, F.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Linfield, F. C.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lowth, T.


Bonwick, A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander


Briant, Frank
Groves, T.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)


Broad, F. A.
Grundy, T. W.
M'Entee, V. L.


Brotherton, J.
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
McLaren, Andrew


Buckie, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Burgess, S.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hancock, John George
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hardie, George D.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, E.)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Harney, E. A.
Middleton, G.


Chapple, W. A.
Harris, Percy A.
Millar, J. D.


Charleton, H. C.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Hayday, Arthur
Mosley, Oswald


Collison, Levi
Herriotts, J.
Muir, John W.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hill, A.
Murnin, H.


Darbishire, C. W.
Hirst, G. H.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hogge, James Myles
Newbold, J. T. W.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Irving, Dan
O'Grady, Captain James


Duncan, C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Oliver, George Harold


Dunnico, H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Paling, W.


Ede, James Chuter
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Edmonds, G.
Jewett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Phillipps, Vivian




Ponsonby, Arthur
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Potts, John S.
Simpson, J. Hope
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Pringle, W. M. R.
Sinclair, Sir A.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Richards, R.
Sitch, Charles, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smillie, Robert
Westwood, J.


Ritson, J.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Snell, Harry
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Snowden, Philip
Whiteley, W.


Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Spoor, B. G.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Rose, Frank H.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Royce, William Stapleton
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Saklatvala, S.
Sullivan, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Salter, Dr. A.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Scrymgeour, E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wright, W.


Sexton, James
Thornton, M.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Tillett, Benjamin
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Shinwell, Emanuel
Trevelyan, C. P.



Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Warne, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Lunn and Mr. Ammon.


Question, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to enable local authorities to establish and maintain savings and housing banks, and for other purposes in connection therewith," put, and agreed to.

DENTISTS ACT (1921) AMENDMENT BILL (changed to "DENTISTS BILL").

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Sir William Whitla; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Shepperson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Matrimonial Causes Bill,

Hawkshead Mission Chapel Charity Bill,

Lucas's Hospital Charity Bill,

Tancred's Charities Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Calne Water) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

River Wear Watch Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have agreed to,—

Port of London (Dock Charges) Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the abandonment of the undertaking and the winding-up and dissolution of the West Somerset Mineral Railway Company, and for matters incidental thereto." [West Somerset Mineral Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords.]

WEST SOMERSET MINERAL RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL [Lords],

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

EMPLOYMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN BILL,

"to make provision for the employment and maintenance of men who served in the Navy, Army, or Air Force and who were disabled in the late war," presented by Lieut.-Colonel Sir RAYMOND GREENE; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

Orders of the Day — RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.

CLAUSE 5.—(Notice of increase of rent.)

(1) The County Court shall have power to amend a notice of intention to increase rent, whether served before or after the passing of this Act, by correcting any errors and supplying any omissions therein, on such terms and conditions as respects arrears of rent or otherwise as appear to the Court to be just and reasonable, and if the Court so directs, the notice as so amended shall have effect and be deemed to have had effect as a valid notice.
(2) The form of notice in the First Schedule to the principal Act shall be amended by the substitution of the words "date of service of this notice" for the words "date of this notice."

Mr. MOSLEY: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This is one of the most remarkable and also one of the most objectionable Clauses in this very remarkable measure. It is retrospective legislation, and retrospective legislation of a peculiarly vicious character. In the Second Reading Debate very little reference was made to this Clause, and it was only in Committee that its full purport was apprehended. I do not think that so far the House has had an opportunity very thoroughly to study or comment upon this Clause. I have said that it is retrospective in character, and it is also what I might describe as class legislation. Hon. Members will speedily see why it is retrospective and why, indeed, it gives a peculiar advantage to the landlord, if they read the Clause. It lays down that
The County Court shall have power to amend a notice of intention to increase rent, whether served before or after the passing of this Act, by correcting any errors and supplying any omissions therein, on such terms and conditions as respects arrears of rent or otherwise as appear to the Court to be just and reasonable, and if the Court so directs, the notice as so amended shall have effect and be deemed to have had effect as a valid notice.
As I understand it, the Clause means that if in the rather elaborate calculations which have to be made in the filling up
of a form of notice to increase rent the landlord makes an error, whether as to form or as to amount, he may appear at the County Court at any period after the passing of the Act and ask the Court to amend his notice and to say that amended notice shall have effect from the date of the original notice as if that were a valid notice, and he may then call upon his unfortunate tenant to pay arrears of rent for the whole period covered by his own error. That is a most amazing provision to introduce into this Bill.
We have had some experience of legislation of this character recently in the case of Scotland, and that legislation was very properly strenuously resisted from these benches. But this provision is even more vicious. In the Scottish case the tenants knew what was their position. They knew that they were taking advantage of a technical mistake on the part of the landlord who was not properly cognisant of the law and were thus avoiding paying rent which it was the intention of the landlord to make them pay. The tenant knew his position, and he knew that it was the intention of the landlord to make him pay. He knew that he was taking advantage of the landlord's mistake. Here the position is entirely different. Here both parties may be in complete ignorance of the position. The tenant receives a form in which is filled a wrong amount. He, like the landlord, in nine cases out of ten will be ignorant of the provision of the law, and will be quite unaware that the landlord has wrongfully filled up the form. Then perhaps some years later, when the tenant has founded the whole basis of his life upon a certain rent, the landlord may come down upon him and make him pay a lump sum as arrears of rent. That is a far more serious situation than that which was produced by the retrospective legislation in regard to the Scottish case. These points were urged in the course of the Committee stage, and it was expected that the right hon. Gentleman would be ready with some reasonable reply. All the reply that he made was that there was a saving provision in the Clause which exempted the tenant from any possibility of hardship. He pointed out that the Clause used this phrase:
As appear to the Court to be just and reasonable.
The right hon. Gentleman then said: "Oh, well, in any case, if hardship exists, the Courts, of course, will have a discretion in the matter." But what will be the actual situation facing a County Court Judge? He reads this Clause and he has to give his verdict in accordance with the law. He says: The landlord is entitled to the full amount of the arrears which have accrued, or he may come to the conclusion that under this Clause he is entitled to nothing at all. There is no case of making a reasonable and equitable compromise between two different conflicting points of view. His duty is actually to carry out the law as laid down in the Act, and he sees there, if the landlord makes a mistake of this character, he still may make a claim for the arrears of rent. I urged that position on the Committee stage. Since then I have consulted legal authorities, and I am informed that the most the Judge is likely to do in the matter of mollifying the position of the tenant is to say that, from the arrears of rent which the landlord is given, the costs of the action will be taken. That is the utmost extent to which the tenant would derive any benefit from this provision which gives the Court a certain measure of discretion; otherwise the Judge must carry out the law.
The landlord, if he is entitled to arrears, will get the arrears in nine cases out of 10. Where he has made such a mistake he will be able to have that mistake rectified in the Court at the expense of the tenant. That is an extraordinary provision. Are we not entitled to say that this is retrospective legislation of a character to which this House has always objected? I only wish the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) had been in his place. I am sure he would join in this conflict. In addition to what I have said, this is class legislation of a peculiarly vicious kind. It sets the class of landlords above the law. It says to the landlord: "You, and you alone, are entitled to make a mistake, and your error in law will subsequently be rectified by the Court." The Bill puts landlords in a peculiar and favoured position such as no other class enjoys. Why should one class of the community be able to go to the Court and ask to have its errors corrected and its omissions supplied? Why should one class be able to do that any more than the rest of us?
If we break the law or make a mistake we cannot go to the Court and ask the Court to supply our omissions and correct our errors. Think of what an extraordinary precedent the right hon. Gentleman is setting up? He says you must have a provision of this character so that a man can go back and get the matter put right. There are many forms which have to be filled up, large and complicated forms. By a precedent of this sort you would be saying that any man who makes a mistake in filling up any Government form should be able to have that mistake rectified and should not suffer for his errors! What an extraordinary new provision to introduce into the law of the country. It has never been held in English law that ignorance of the law is any excuse. It has always been held that a man who breaks the law, or is ignorant of the law, must suffer for his actions. This is introducing a particularly new and vicious principle on behalf of one class. I venture to say that throughout these discussions this legislation has been the subject of suspicion that it is class legislation, and I say that if this Clause is retained in the Bill it will be branded indelibly with the stigma of class legislation. I do trust, even at this stage of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to omit, or drastically to amend, this very objectionable Clause.

Mr. HILL: I beg to second the Amendment.
In a few words I would support the deletion of the Clause. I want to emphasise the point that has been made so clearly, that this is class legislation. This is a proposal to create a privilege, especially for the landlords as against the tenants. In the Committee the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) informed the Minister that in his opinion, if the Clause was left in the Bill and really became operative, the County Court Judges would bless, or curse, the Minister in appropriate language. Then the County Court Judge will be called upon to spend a good deal of time in going into details like this that he ought not to be troubled with at all. Briefly, it seems to me that the Clause is unnecessary, it would be very heavily weighted against the tenant, and must of necessity be mischievous.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): In order to explain the purpose of the Clause that the hon. Member has moved to leave out of the Bill, it is necessary to recall the words of the provision in the original Act which have operated so harshly as to require some amendment. In Section 3 (Limitation as to permitted increases in rent) of the Act of 1920, it is laid down that the landlord must give a valid notice of increase in rent to the tenant, and that that notice must be in accordance with the Schedule of the Act. The first Schedule of the Act of 1920 gives the form of notice by the landlord. It is attached to the Act. It requires a great number of calculations to be made by the landlord. He has to put down what is still the rent, and the number of such various factors which make up the increase of rent that he is proposing to charge, and he has to give, at any rate in certain cases, what the percentage on the net rent is, and what this increase amounts to. But landlords have not always had the benefit of education; have not all enjoyed the same benefits of education as the hon. Member for Harrow, and they are fallible. They sometimes make mistakes not only in this but in other calculations. The result of a perfectly unintentional and accidental mistake on the part of the landlord, a mistake which may be actually against his own interests, which may mean that he is asking the tenant for a smaller increase of rent than that to which he is justly entitled—the effect of that is to render the notice invalid. And the result of notice being rendered invalid is not that the landlord is then given the rent which is his proper legal due, but that he is denied any redress. The hon. Member for Harrow is always one-sided. I confess that the suggestion that in some cases the landlord has claimed a much smaller increase of rent than that to which he is entitled is the first admission in favour of the landlord that I have heard from the opposite benches since this Bill was introduced. It is perfectly obvious that the thing should be put right if the landlord, having stated that he has charged the tenant so much extra per week by say 15 per cent. on the net rent, it turns out that it should be 2½ or 4 per cent. The punishment does not fit the crime. The purpose of the present Clause 5 is not to allow the County Court Judge
in many cases where documents are found to be incorrect to amend them: it is to give the County Court Judge power to amend the notice so as to make it accurate. It will then have to be considered what is to be done about the new rent that has been paid or not been paid up to the time of the case coming into Court. The hon. Member for Harrow ridicules once more, as he has often done, the suggestion that the Court will take any course that is just and reasonable. I do not really know why we should make such an assumption. The County Court will not make the mistakes supposed between landlord and tenant. You take the case where the tenant has been paying for a long period of time less than he ought to have paid, without notice. The tenant has based his standard of life upon what he thought he should pay, and not upon the rent which he would have had to pay if the landlord had not made the mistake. Surely we ought not to assume that, unless the Court thinks it just and reasonable, the tenant will not be made to pay the arrears. For my own part, knowing what I do of the fairness and sympathy in general of County Court Judges, I am quite prepared to leave the matter to their discretion with the full satisfaction that in saying what shall be done in cases of this sort, they will take the circumstances that are relevant into account and will give a judgment, that will be fair and honourable, not only to landlord but also to tenant.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Would the tenant also be entitled to claim if the notice was inaccurate?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the notice was inaccurate?

HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: In connection with what you say, would the tenant be entitled to recover on the other side?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether I have made myself clear, but I do not quite see why the tenant should want to give notice to amend because, if it is not amended, the tenant is not liable to pay any increase at all. The point of view of the tenant, unless he were a much more philanthropic person than we generally find him to be, would be to sit tight.

Mr. FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman a little while ago referred to the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) and said he was one-sided. I think, in this matter, it is on the right side, because the Clause to which he objects has not, I suppose, any parallel in previous legislation. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the complicated forms in the principal Act. I think that is a grievance. I think anyone who has had to fill in these forms has a complaint against them. I think the remedy for that complicated form is not to pass Clauses such as this, or suggest such a Clause as this; the remedy is to give us a simple form instead of a complicated form. Reference has been made to the First Schedule of the 1920 Act. It contains far too many particulars and comprises far too many details. If the right hon. Gentleman proposed in this Amendment a measure that would simplify that form, so that it might be quite understood by landlord and tenant, then I think he would have carried the sympathy of the whole House.
Lawyers lately have been very much astonished by this legislation dealing with the restriction of rents and interest. They look upon this as a temporary evil and as something of mushroom growth, but they hope this legislation will be wiped away very quickly. But amongst all the strange legislation we have had recently nothing is more objectionable than that which is condemned by the Amendment now before the House. Let the right hon. Gentleman consider how wide is this subject. The County Court Judge can correct any error whatever amount is involved, and supply omissions, and there is no limit of time. I do not know how far the County Court Judge might go back. He might have power to go back as far as the principal Act itself which is 1920, and whilst we have every confidence in the decisions of our County Court Judges, we know that occasionally miscarriages of justice do arise, and I think it is a most objectionable thing that a tenant, against whom no complaint can be made, should be liable to have brought against him, without any worming, a substantial claim amounting to a very large sum of money.
As far as I know, there is no other part of the law where we do not act upon the principle that where a mistake occurs the
one who makes the mistake must suffer for it. By this proposal, however, you are reversing that principle. If it is intended to recover from B the consequences of a legal mistake made by A, there ought to be some other provision. You cannot demand a large sum of money in this way without easing the burden to the man upon whom it has been wrongfully placed. This Clause will tend to slackness in the filling up of the forms. In the past in the filling up of forms demanding an increase of rent a great deal of care has been exercised, but it will not matter in the future how the form is filled up, and this Clause will tend to slackness in that direction. It will also penalise many persons, and it is a reversal of the principle of our recognised law. The Bill would be very much more acceptable if this Clause were struck out. I agree with what the Mover of this Amendment has said, and while I recognise that there is a grievance, the attempt made by the Government to remove it has created another grievance very much larger.

Mr. EDE: We have been told that the Government never make mistakes, and that those who have drawn up this Bill know what they are doing. I want to point out that Section 2 of the principal Act makes it very difficult to follow the reasoning of the Minister of Health when he says that a landlord who had to ask his tenant for 14½ per cent. was serving an invalid notice. Each time in Section 2 of the principal Act the landlord is authorised to make increases not exceeding certain sums, and therefore whether one puts in 15 per cent. or 14½ per cent. it is quite valid. Paragraph (c) of Section 2 of the principal Act lays down that it must be an amount not exceeding 15 per cent. of the net rent. There is another sub section dealing with improvements of the structure and alterations, and here again the amount of the increase is fixed. When we come to repairs the amount is to be a sum not exceeding 25 per cent., and the tenant is quite entitled if he has a notice for less than that percentage, to think that the landlord has availed himself of the opportunity so given by not increasing the rent to the full extent.
It seems to me wholly unjustifiable to empower the County Court Judge, possibly years after, through some dispute having arisen to increase these
increases to the full extent allowed by the principal Act. I know as a rule that these notices are drawn up with great care. I have had a good many of them submitted to me, and in no case have I ever seen less than the permitted increase, although I have occasionally found some where the landlord had got somewhat confused between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. As a rule, however, I think these forms are very carefully filled up. I can say that in my experience every assistance is given by the local overseers and the rating authorities to enable them to arrive at what the rents were in 1914. These notices are bargains made between the two parties, and I do not think this power should be given to the County Court Judge because it is sure to lead to a good deal of bad feeling. It will make tenants very dubious as to how far this House is concerned about holding the balance fairly between the two parties to the transaction because they will feel that this gives them, if they have future friction with their landlords, the added terror that he may then seek to get the notice amended, although for some reasons best known to himself he may not have added the full increase.
I know there are many landlords who have not added the full 25 per cent. increase because they do not want the tenant to go to the sanitary inspector. I know landlords who have asked me to make out their notices, and when I have said, "What about the 25 per cent. for repairs," they have replied, "Do not put that in because it will give the tenants the power to go to the sanitary inspector." There is nothing to prevent landlords putting in this claim years after, and it gives them power to get the increase during the whole period they have neglected to carry out the repairs which the sanitary inspector could have compelled them to do. This is retrospective legislation of the worst possible kind, and I hope the Minister of Health will withdraw this Clause, or else allow another place to give us cause to thank heaven that they still remain a part of the British Constitution.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I wish to make one or two brief observations upon some criticisms which have been made by hon. Members opposite. The Mover of this Amendment described this Clause as a piece of class legislation, but I can-
not understand why he makes that statement. If he will reflect for a moment or two upon the different categories of people who own house property, I do not think he will be able to maintain his argument that it belongs to one particular class. I suppose there are millions of pounds' worth of house property to-day belonging to the working classes, trade unions, building societies, and other organisations who will, in fact, get the benefit of this Clause, and who are really the people who most constantly make mistakes in connection with the notices they give. It is not so much a question affecting the owners of a large amount or property, such as dukes and earls, because they are well able to employ professional advice, and I suppose in nearly every case their notices are in very good order. The people who have made mistakes in these notices during the last few years have been the men who own one or two or three houses, who have had to struggle with a form which they have probably bought at a newspaper shop, and have endeavoured to fill up the form to the best of their ability, and have tried to work out the extraordinary mathematical calculations required by this unfortunate legislation, and in the end have probably made unfortunate mistakes in the notices they have served on their tenants.
In hundreds of cases, owing to the mistake in the notice, the tenant has been living free of rent altogether for a very long period. All this Clause does is that in such a case, or in any case which comes under this Section, a man can go to the County Court Judge and say, "I have made a mistake; will you please alter it on fair and proper terms?" That is not class legislation, and the Judge can reply, "If I do alter the terms I shall impose conditions, and you will have to suffer for your mistake." The County Court Judge has to come to a conclusion as to what is just and reasonable in the circumstances. I think it is the universal experience of all those who have had any experience of our County Court Judges in this country that they have been most reasonable and sympathetic in regard to all applications made to them from the point of view of the tenant. Like other hon. Members, I object to this sort of legislation, and I agree that it is unfortunate, but if you are going to do justice to people who are
not particularly well educated, and who are not able to get proper legal advice, the only alternative is to allow the County Court Judge, on proper and reasonable terms, to deal with these cases and impose such penalties as he thinks are reasonable, and allow the notice to be so amended as to express what was really the intention of the parties concerned.

Captain W. BENN: We are all anxious to be perfectly fair on this thorny question, but I would like to point out that the last argument used by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has been answered by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). We have been told, in the first place, that we must simplify the farms This procedure is based on a Section of the Act which is needlessly complicated. There is a 25 per cent. permissible increase in regard to repairs.

Sir K. WOOD: Nobody has put down any suggestion to simplify this form, and I think it is impossible.

Captain BENN: But the answer to the argument has been to simplify the form in the first place; and secondly, that while we are anxious to be fair to the landlord, it is also necessary to be fair to the tenant. The best point in my judgment which has been made in the Debate is that people work on very small incomes. The wife has so much to spend and so much is allotted to rent. The thrifty wife perhaps makes ends meet and may save a little. It is a serious thing suddenly to announce that a mistake has been made, and that large sums are due retrospectively by these people. This Clause is retrospective and that in itself is bad. What kind of retrospective increase has been permitted?
The County Court shall have power to amend a notice of intention to increase rent by correcting any errors or supplying any omissions.
I hope that I am wrong, but I would ask the Minister this. Suppose that a landlord had decided not to impose the 25 per cent. increase, is that an omission within the meaning of this Clause? That is a very serious question. Does the word "omission" in Clause 5 mean the omission to charge the 25 per cent. which is permitted under one of the Sections of the principal Act? If it does, by this Clause you say to the landlord, who had
previously decided that he would not impose on the tenant the permitted increase, "You may now go to the Court and say, 'I omitted to charge the in crease permitted in one of the paragraphs of the Schedule and I ask permission now to increase my notice so as to charge the permitted increase from the time the tenant entered into possession of the house.'" Is that one of the operations which the Government permit by this Clause? It is most important to have an answer to that.
It is not a question of saying simply, this is a matter of making a slip as regards structural alterations, or some other arithmetical slip arising out of the complications of the form, but whether the word "omission" means that, if he has wilfully omitted to demand the permitted increase, he is now to be allowed to go to the County Court and ask to be permitted to make the increase. That is a serious change which I imagine the Minister does not contemplate; but I would like a definite assurance on this point. If it were simply that this power in the County Court should exist, as and from, the passing of the Act, that might be a reasonable thing, but to say that it shall be retrospective as and from the earliest of these Acts seems to me to be utterly unreasonable. There are two later Amendments, which suggest that this procedure only comes into operation after the passing of the Act, which may not be divided on, but those of us who vote for the total omission of this Clause, in this as in other cases, have to record our opinion in a very rough and ready way, owing to the limitations under which we are working. I ask the Minister to answer the question which I have asked.

Mr. ROBERT MURRAY: The chief objection which seems to me to exist against the Clause as it stands is that it is now proposed to put on a Court of law a duty which ought to belong entirely to the individual. Under this Clause it is now open to the landlord to come into Court with the most ill-digested, ill-prepared statement, and to put upon the Court the duty of amending his mistakes. This Clause will make for slackness and carelessness on the part of the landlord, and slackness and carelessness in the preparation of these statements will make of slackness and carelessness on the part of the Court in trying to do justice
between the parties. It has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn)—though I do not agree—that both sides are trying to be fair to both landlord and tenant. I have listened carefully to the discussions, and I have not seen the slightest desire on the part of the Government to be fair to the tenant. If they had entertained any desire, here was an opportunity, by which they might have placed the duty definitely and distinctly on the landlord to make his statement clear as to his claims against the tenant, and, having submitted a clear statement, that he should take his stand definitely on that in making his claim against the tenant. But up to the last moment that statement may be subject to all kinds of alteration.
The Minister has said that by permitting an unintentional error on the part of the landlord we are doing something altogether wrong, but as the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) has said, we are breaking upon what is a clear and definite basis of British law, that intentionally or unintentionally an error before the law shall stand against an individual who makes that error. The Minister of Health says that we are not to penalise the unfortunate landlord for mistakes of that kind. He suggests that the punishment does not fit the crime. But the punishment in this case would fit the crime, because if the landlord made a mistake, which resulted in penalising the tenant, the tenancy would come back on his own shoulders. Reasons have been given, however attenuated, with regard to some of the other Clauses which the Government defend, but not the slightest reason has been given why this Clause should stand.

Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: The Government are fortunate in finding so excellent and plausible an advocate for this Clause as the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). He has uttered in this House the only single word of excuse for this Clause, which so far has been used. The chorus of condemnation from all parts of the House has been unanimous. I do not wish to stigmatise this Clause as class legislation, or anything of that kind, but I would ask my Noble Friend, who, I know, is reasonable in all these matters, to consider carefully whether under this
Clause he is not taking a step which is in antagonism to a sound and important principle of constitutional law. My hon. Friend opposite, with considerable dexterity, strove to represent the people, for whom this Bill is intended, as half-imbecile, half-illiterate people, who are unable to fill in a form. I would remind my hon. Friend that the whole of the section of the community which he represents is not of this class, and that even for those who are, there are societies and willing friends to help them in what is, after all, a comparatively simple operation.
Would it not be far better instead of putting a Clause of this kind into the Bill to have inserted a simple schedule which would have superceded the schedule in the Act of 1920 and would have made it simple even for those whom my hon. Friend represents to comply with the requirements of the law? My Noble Friend knows that with regard to the great bulk of transactions between parties in this country, which are carried on in writing, it is of the utmost importance in the general public interest that the intentions of the parties should be judged by what they sign. That is an elementary principle of constitutional law. No doubt in a certain limited class of cases a strictly limited discretion is given to the Courts. That may be wise or not, but at any rate the parties who put their hand to a document, as tenants or purchasers, or to any other class of document, and those who receive those documents, rely on them to know where they stand.
Now we are opening a new era in which the right hon. Gentleman and my Noble Friend say, "Never mind, old boy, if you muddle through somehow we will put up the County Court Judge to help you to muddle along. Never mind what the document says." You are by this Clause displacing a document which is a definite thing, by something quite different, something fraught with great elements of danger. You are displacing a definite document to be interpreted, by a roving commission to the County Court Judge who is to attribute motives and intentions at his own sweet will. No two County Court Judges in any part of the country will agree in their ideas about those cases which are brought before them under this litigation-making Clause.
These considerations which you are asking them to decide are not covered by any
precedents or decided cases. You are leaving to them unlimited discretion to read into a document what, in the light of after events, they consider should be read into it, not to rectify a limited class of errors or omissions, but to rectify—and here I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith hit upon a rather important point—any omissions and any errors which, in the light of after events, they think to be reasonable and just. That is not clean cut legislation. It is muddled legislation. Instead of putting a clear schedule into this Act you open up a vista of muddle and ltigation, and you are taking, it may be in a very quiet and comparatively unimportant way, a distinct step away from the sound maxim of the British Constitutions which Members of the Government will some day regret.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. LORDEN: The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith would be a rather serious one if it had not been dealt with already. But it seems to me that it has been dealt with by the Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Act which has recently become law, and which provides that arrears can be recovered by a landlord from a tenant from the 1st day of December, 1922. Therefore that does limit the question of repayment about which the hon. and gallant Member raised the point. It would be a serious matter if it could be reopened on all these Acts ever since a little after the War broke out. Therefore the County Court Judge, however much he might desire to go behind it, is up against the Section of the Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Act, 1923. It seems to me you cannot get behind it. Section 2 says:

"(a) any validated increase of rent in respect of the period from the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, to the date of the passing of this Act, both inclusive; and
(b) any sum which during the said period has been recovered by the tenant from the landlord by deductions from rent or otherwise and which would not have been so recoverable had this Act been then in force;

shall be payable by instalments"—
There is a further reservation, which makes it almost impossible for the landlord to recover, because it goes on to say:
with and as part of the periodical payments of rent, each instalment being 15 per cent. of the standard rent for the week,
month, or other period for which the rent is payable.
Therefore, you have limitation upon limitation, so that the fears of the hon. Gentleman on the point he raised are entirely removed.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am surprised at the point which has just been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He assumes that the provisions in the Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Act will apply to the Clause we are now discussing, and that the discretion of the County Court Judge, as given by Clause 5, will be limited by the provisions which are laid down in Section 2 of the Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Act, 1923. I would submit to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that he is really under a misapprehension in this respect. The Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Act validated certain notices of increase, and only those notices of increase. Before that Act, it had been determined by a decision of the House of Lords that where a notice of increase had been given, and there had been no notice to quit, such notice of increase was not valid. The object of the Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Act was to validate such notices. It only validated notices which were otherwise valid. It said that, even although there had been no notice to quit, nevertheless the notice of increase would be validated under the Act, and, for the purpose of determining the amount of arrears which would be due to the landlord, a certain date was introduced for the purpose of determining how far arrears would be payable, and, as the hon. Member clearly pointed out, the Act went on to lay down conditions as to the payment of arrears. That applies to a special case which is not within the purview of Clause 5 at all. Clause 5 seeks to make valid notices of increase which are invalid for other reasons, and deals with notices of increase which have been given since the beginning of the original Act, and you are imposing a very serious duty upon County Court Judges to determine how far, under these conditions, the arrears are to be payable.
It is a very difficult matter. In connection with the Notices of Increase Act, the House at that time felt it necessary to define clearly he date as from which the arrears should run, and not only did it define clearly that date, but the House
also defined the period at which instalments should be paid. But here you give a roving commission to the County Court Judge. If, in the other case, it was necessary, first of all, to lay down a date with reference to which the arrears should be payable, and that, even having laid down that date, it was necessary to make special arrangements with regard to instalments, then it is equally necessary in the present case. On that occasion we had an extraordinary position indeed, because the date was introduced in respect to which the legislation was made retrospective. That date was based upon a speech by the late Prime Minister, but here we have not even a speech of the late Prime Minister to guide us. The County Court Judge may, at his discretion, go right back to 1921. Also, of course, it is unfortunate that this poor landlord—and we will stick to the "poor landlord," out of deference to the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood)—the man who cannot make up a notice, the man who never in his business dealings has had to tabulate any percentages—we hear so often about these poor people, but we do not meet them in ordinary life.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member moves in such high society!

Mr. PRINGLE: I do not belong to the profession to which the hon. Member belongs, and, of course, I have not the means of meeting the enormous clientèle which patronises his firm, but if the clients of the hon. Member are of the character he depicts in the House, I can understand the prosperity of his business. Because he is peculiarly fortunate in his clients, I do not think that is any reason why this House should base its legislation upon the experience which he has been fortunate enough to obtain. We have, after all, to deal with the situation that the people who go in for investments in house property are no more ignorant or innocent than other people who invest. They are usually able to calculate percentages which they are going to get on 'their money, and the income they are going to receive from year to year, so that they can easily calculate the percentage in this case, and I believe in the majority of cases where mistakes have been made in notices, the mistakes have been made to the advantage of the land-
lord and not to his disadvantage. I have had cases brought to my own notice where through, shall we say, a singular inadvertence, the landlord, in calculating this percentage, has managed to work it out as something more than that to which he was legally entitled, and, of course, if he is the innocent person depicted by the hon. Member for West Woolwich, he will go to the County Court Judge and will say, "I know nothing about arithmetic, it is so long since I was at school. I have not a ready reckoner; I have not been able to buy one in these hard times, and I cannot find the money to meet the cost of repairs. And so, of all these luxuries—even the advice of the hon. Member for West Woolwich—I have been unable to avail myself."
Therefore, he appeals ad misericordiam to the County Court Judge, to whom he says, "I have made this mistake. My tenant writes to say that all the rent he has paid since 1921 should be refunded. Have mercy upon me! Here is a Clause—Clause 5—introduced by a benevolent Government, which expressly directs your honour to consider my weaknesses and shortcomings, and to say that I should not suffer for my mistake: It is true the mistake is in my favour, but I am an honest, deserving citizen, and I should not have thought of doing that. It is solely due to my inability to calculate." And, of course, with this Clause 5 before him, the County Court Judge will say that obviously the Government—a benevolent Government, a wise Government, a moral Government, a Government whose honesty verges upon simplicity—intended this, and the County Court Judge will give judgment in his favour, and say that the notice, in spite of this slight inaccuracy—in favour of the landlord, of course—is valid, and that the tenant will be bound to pay the arrears from the beginning. I know the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is against all retrospective legislation. Here we have the worst kind of retrospective legislation.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: No.

Mr. PRINGLE: It would be much better if we said how far it was to be retrospective, but we are leaving it entirely to the discretion of the County Court Judges up and down the country. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentle-
man would consent to any such proposition. We used to be told in the old days that equity varied with the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot. We have now, apparently, the rights of landlords and tenants to be determined by the length of the foot of every County Court Judge. It was not altogether unsatisfactory when we had only one Lord Chancellor, but when we have all these County Court Judges, what is the situation? I suggest to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that the situation is appalling; that it is enough to make his flesh creep, and that he, as a good Constitutionalist, even at this moment, when we are told he is spending his last days in this House, he should protest against such a monstrous innovation, not only against constitutional practice, but against the constitutional traditions of this country. I am quite sure that the appeal I have made to him will not be made in vain; he will not be taken in by the references of the hon. Member for West Woolwich to the poor landlords who do not know how to calculate. Such appeals have never made any impression upon him in the past. He has shown himself a rigid adherent of the real spirit of our legislation, and the real spirit of our constitution, and I hope he will insist that it shall not be departed from in this legislation. I submit that no case has been made out by the Government for any such far-reaching provision as that which is now before the House. If any relaxation is to be made, it is the duty of the House to lay down the principles upon which it is to be made, to lay down clearly the nature of the inaccuracies which are to be condoned by the County Court Judge, and, having laid that down, having made it clear that it is something which does not go to the root of the matter, they should also lay down the equitable consideration which is to be granted in such cases, and only so will it be possible for Parliament rightly to discharge its functions to both sides.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise for the purpose of making some response to the one serious point which has been put to me from the opposite benches. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will not protest, because it is his own point.

Captain BENN: I do protest.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will not take up the time of the House in dealing with remarks which are merely made with the benevolent intention of entertaining us for as long as possible, but the hon. and gallant Member did make a point which requires some answer. He inquired whether it would be possible to claim that the omission should be corrected by the Court if a man omitted to make a claim under one paragraph set out in the Schedule. I do not think that could conceivably occur, because if the hon. and gallant Member will look at the Schedule he will see it begins with the formal notice, "I intend to increase the rent" by so much per week, and "the increase is made up as follows." There are two things to be filled up, the total amount of the claim and also details of that amount. If the total corresponds with the details clearly it will not be possible for the landlord afterwards to claim he has omitted some details, because all the details will have been in the total. Therefore I think the case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests could not possibly arise.

Captain BENN: But if he failed to fill up one of the items? My point is this. The object of the Clause is to validate an omission. Suppose, even in the case the right hon. Gentleman takes, the landlord did not put in the total, although he filled in the other paragraphs, is his claim to be validated by the insertion by the County Court Judge of the total?

Mr. HARNEY: Let me state what is in my mind.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I will say what is in my mind first. If the landlord has omitted to fill up the total or has omitted to fill up one of the details the Court may accept his claim if he comes along afterwards and says that the omission was accidental. If the hon. Member thinks there is any doubt about this matter, I will have it looked into. I do not contemplate the possibility of such a thing, but if there is any doubt I am willing to try and find some other form of words to make it quite clear.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I do not know that any Amendment could put this Clause right. It is wrong in principle. I do not think there is any other body of people in this country which has at its
disposal the County Court Judge and all his officials. I never had them at my disposal. I have had something to do with County Courts in my time, and have had to fill in lots of forms and declarations and so on, and I never found that the County Court Judge or his staff were there to correct any of my omissions. Here you have singled out one body of men at whose disposal the whole of the officials of the County Court are to be placed. They are to supply any omission and to correct any error the landlord may make. Would not this open the door to the sending in of any sort of notice and leaving it to the County Court Judge or officials to put it right? I do not know anyone else in this country who is given such assistance. I do not see why we on these benches should object to it very much, because the more this kind of legislation is introduced the sooner will we on this side get into power. I am amazed at the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). He seems to have set himself up as an unofficial Minister of Health; he is constantly offering the Ministry his assistance in getting through this Bill. He is always defending them. What is it this Clause is going to restrict? Is it not the case it is intended to put right what happened in Scotland some time ago? It provides, in fact, there shall be no more wrong notices. It does not restrict anything unless it is the County Court officials to help the landlord to restrict the wages of the people by taking more out of them than he would otherwise be able to do. The County Court Judge is a very busy man. He has plenty of work, and I do not suppose that his staff is any too large, but if these duties are going to be imposed upon them the staff will have to be considerably increased. It is not fair to put that staff at the disposal of one class of individuals in this country. Really, Clause 5 has nothing whatever to do either with rent restrictions or with supplying houses. It is simply a provision to assist one body of people in the country, and for that reason I am opposed to it.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) made a very amusing speech, as he always does. Except on very rare occasions, he does not repeat the speeches made by other
Members in front of him, as was done repeatedly yesterday. But his speech had very little whatever to do with the question before the House. It is absurd to say, as he did, that the landlord cannot calculate. It would appear from what the hon. Member said that what the Clause ought to Jo is to put in a ready reckoner for the use of the landlord. He complains that the landlord is to be able to get the County Court Judge to make his calculations for him. But the speech of the hon. Gentleman had very little to do with the Clause. The real necessity for this Clause is to be found in the fact that, unfortunately, the late Government, or rather the first Coalition Government interfered with the law of supply and demand. At that time I had the honour of using my poor abilities to persuade Lord Long, who introduced that Bill, that it was a great mistake to interfere by legislation with the laws of supply and demand.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: They gave £60,000,000 to the railways.

Sir F. BANBURY: What has that to do with this Clause?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: It is another case of interference with the law of supply and demand.

Sir F. BANBURY: Having damaged the railways, the Government proceeded to make good—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That has nothing to do with this Clause, the object of which is to give the County Court Judge certain powers.

Sir F. BANBURY: I was referring to the fact that legislation of a certain kind had led to a lot of trouble. We were told in 1915 that that Act was only to last during the War, but in 1917 it required to be amended, and if hon. Members have watched matters they will have seen that every time a Bill of this sort is passed it requires amendment as soon as it has been in operation a short time. No Bill is going to Settle—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet is still a good way from the County Court Judge.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member for Penistone gave us his reason for opposing this Clause. He said the landlord could not calculate. The difficulty
is, however, that neither the landlord nor the tenant understands the legislation which has been passed.

Mr. PRINGLE: May I point out that I was not in the House at the time that legislation was passed? I was out of it and was looking to the right hon. Baronet to watch over my interests.

Sir F. BANBURY: And I did. If the hon. Gentleman will again retire from the House and leave me to look after his interests, I think both the House and himself will be far better off. What I want to insist upon is that the real reason for the passing of this Clause is the legislation already in existence. It is because we cannot understand that legislation that it is necessary for the County Court Judge to correct errors in the claims sent in. I do not see anything unreasonable in that at all. As a magistrate I have before now, when a summons has come before the Court of which I have been a member, and when it has been found that that summons has been badly drawn, dismissed it and immediately granted another summons properly drawn. Is it not the object of every Judge and every magistrate, and of everyone in a judicial capacity to see that justice is done? It is not necessary, simply because a document is wrongly drawn, to refuse to hear a case. This Clause only allows the case to be heard in order that justice may be done. Another point which has been raised has to deal with the question of retrospection. I have always been opposed to retrospective legislation, but in view of the extraordinary body of legislation which has been introduced in this country it does sometimes necessitate a divergence from one's views. Therefore, although I am very much opposed to retrospective legislation, I see no particular harm in it in this case so long as justice is done. Hon. Members opposite have suggested that one ought to be fair to the landlords. I would suggest that if their opinion of fairness to landlords is embodied in the methods of discussion which have been pursued on this Bill during the last day or two, it is a very extraordinary idea of fairness.

Mr. HARNEY: I regard this Amendment as of very great importance, and I do not think the Minister of Health really appreciates the significance of what he is doing. To increase rent is really to
make a new contract between the landlord and the tenant, and we have heard, in the recent Debates, that the House of Lords found it necessary to invalidate a great number of notices of increase because the necessary steps were not taken to lay the foundation for new tenancies by determining the old. By the Act that was recently passed, this notice of increase is made to effect the purpose of a notice to quit, so that, substantially, the County Court Judge is being given the power to do what never has been done before, namely, to set right what can at all events be treated as a notice to quit. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said that in his experience these Amendments are often made. Of course they are, and there is no need whatever for this Clause in order to give the County Court Judge the power to make the kind of Amendment to which he refers. There is a general jurisdiction to set right small slips that do not touch the root of the matter in question, and it has, on this particular Act, been specifically decided that, while minor matters can be set right, substantial ones cannot.
When, therefore, a County Court Judge takes up this Clause and says, "I have to interpret it according to the intention of Parliament," he starts by presuming that Parliament knew the law, and he, there fore, must say to himself that, since Parliament knew that he already had the power to make minor Amendments, and goes out of its way to say expressly that he is to have the new power of supplying omissions and correcting errors, he is bound to construe these words as empowering him absolutely to make a new notice in all particulars. We have set out in the Schedule, not to this Bill, but to the previous Act, an elaborate form of notice. Why have a form embodied in an Act of Parliament, and given full statutory effect, if the result of a Clause like this is really to make it no more effective than if it simply said that the County Court Judge shall have power to give an increase of rent if a letter is written to him? Why have this elaborate notice if it is to be disregarded? The right hon. Gentleman can take it from me that County Court Judges are bound, according to the ordinary canons of construction, and knowing, as I have said that there is in them at all times the
power to make small alterations, to regard this as an express instruction to them to make the most vital alterations in the notice. If that be so, why is this notice the Schedule at all?
Now I come to another matter, which strikes me as being of more importance than, perhaps, the legal one. For a landlord to increase his rent is a somewhat serious thing, and this Parliament has chosen to say that, if he is going to increase the rent, he must comply with certain conditions. Parliament, presumably, was of opinion that the landlord had to mind his p's and q's when he was going to increase his rent, because, dealing as he was with a large number of more of less ignorant people, there was nothing in the world easier for him than, on the chance of the tenant not detecting it, to make out the notice for a larger amount than was due. I have little doubt myself that, if you were to take any given 100 notices of increase, you would be safe in saying that they would be passed by the tenants although 99 of them erred perhaps to the extent of 10s. or 15s. or more on the wrong side. It was just to prevent landlords who were dealing with persons who could not protect themselves from increasing to an undue extent the amount to which these calculations of 25 per cent. here and 15 per cent. there entitled them—to prevent them from taking advantage of that arithmetic in their own favour—that it was provided that a notice should be served not merely saying, as it might have said, "I desire an increase of 40 per cent.," but saying, figure for figure and date for date, how that increase was brought about, so that the tenant might be perfectly clear as to what was being done. Now we are told that all this is to be treated as moonshine, that a landlord can now serve a notice in which he says, "I claim an increase of 40 per cent.": and, if the case goes to a County Court Judge, he says, "Oh, County Court Judge, I know that notice is all wrong, and does not pay the slightest attention to the Schedule, but here is a Section enabling you to do what I did not do for myself."
It seems to me to be a monstrous innovation. No Act that I have ever read in my experience at the Bar, and that has extended over some time now, has given to a Judge in any circumstances
such power as is given in this clause, and given, not to an ordinary Judge, who is dealing with an ordinary case, but given to a County Court Judge in reference to what amounts to the creation of a new tenancy. If there has been one thing sacred in our law, from feudal days onwards, it has been the necessity for accuracy in notices to quit. This notice of intention to increase the rent is in effect also a notice to quit, or you could not get the increase, and still we are told that it can be filled up haphazard in any way whatsoever. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to an hon. Member on this side, said that there was only one serious point that it was necessary to consider, and that point was this: Suppose that the landlord omits to put in the increase of 25 per cent., as he may, for repairs. There may be some conscientious landlords who know they have not done Ole repairs, and have no intention of doing them, and, therefore, do not put in the 25 per cent. Suppose he omits to put in the 15 per cent., as he may. The tenant gets the notice, and says, "Good landlord, nice kind man! I have now more money in my pocket than I thought I had." But suppose that, two years afterwards, the landlord has a row with the tenant, who may have annoyed him about something, serves him with a summons to pay the back increases, and then goes to the Couny Court and says, "Oh, I am very sorry, but I find I omitted to put in the 25 per cent., or the 15 per cent., as the case may be: will you supply it for me?" The County Court Judge is bound to do so.

Sir K. WOOD: No.

Mr. HARNEY: He is not bound to, but he may. I cannot go back at every moment and restate the ground that I hope I have made clear. When I say he is bound to do so, I mean as the result of my previous argument. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) were sitting on the County Court bench, clear-headed man as he is, and if he had this Act before him and I were the counsel and said to him, "What right, your Honour, have you to refuse to make this Amendment?" what would his answer be?

Sir K. WOOD: I should say it was in my entire discretion.

Mr. HARNEY: But counsel would reply that even the most self-assertive of Judges must exercise a judicial discretion, and the exercise of a judicial discretion is to confine the latitude of his own will to what was the intention of Parliament; and if he has before him an Act which says that this discretion is not to be confined to the ordinary discretion of amendment, but is to go to the extent of supplying errors and omissions. I feel satisfied that whether the hon. Member would do so or not, the great majority of County Court Judges would. The point that I was about to make, when I was interrupted, was this: What is there to prevent a landlord, who when he served the notice had no wish whatever to add these increases, from changing his mind two years afterwards, and going to the County Court Judge and compelling the unfortunate tenant to pay up arrears which the tenant rightly thought were his own money up to that moment? I do think that the effect of this Clause will be to make the tenant pay for the landlord's errors. What right has anyone to suppose that, if a tenant receives a notice only asking him for a certain amount of rent, he has not been forgiven the balance, or that the balance is not going to be insisted upon? Why should he not be entitled to think that he is justified in regulating his domestic budget according to the amount he has to pay, and what a hardship it would be on him if, two years afterwards, the notice upon which he based his financial arrangements is to be altered, and he has to pay that which, if he had been asked at the beginning, he could have paid, but which, when he is asked for it two years afterwards, becomes a wholly impossible hardship? For these reasons, I submit that the Clause in its present form is an entire legislative innovation. Nothing that I know of exists like it in any Act of Parliament, and I am at a loss to understand why landlords, who are, presumably, not grossly ignorant people, should be spoon-fed in this way, and why a special Clause should be put into an Act of Parliament for this reason, and this reason only, that the notice has to be filled up by the landlord class, and that they are by common consent such a stupid and uncultivated class that they would be unable
properly to fill in the spaces that are provided in the Schedule actually printed in advance for them.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I understood, from the interjections made when the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) was speaking, that the defence of this Clause was really founded on the discretion left to the County Court Judge. I submit, with respect, that, when you are dealing with this dangerous doctrine of retrospective legislation, the House should clearly define on what lines it is to go. The Minister, if I understood him rightly, suggested that it might be possible or desirable to alter the form of the words so as to make impossible some of the contingencies set forth by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Ede), and I think the Minister's own speech at the beginning was rather suggestive that this Clause was going further than be intended. He mentioned an illustration of an undoubted hardship on a landlord who, in his notice, had charged less than he was entitled to charge. If I understood the Minister correctly, he went on to say that, because of some mis-statement in the original notice, the Court had found that the landlord was not entitled to any increase whatever, not even to the smaller amount which he had demanded, because of this mistake; and he referred to the principal Act. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would tell us on what that is based, because, in Clause 3 of the principal Act, it clearly states that if a notice contains any statement or representation which is false or misleading in any material particular, the landlord shall be liable to a penalty. Surely, if the notice demanded less money than the landlord was legally entitled to, the Court would hardly hold that the notice contained statements which were misleading or false, and, therefore, I put it to the Minister that, if all he desires to do is to protect the landlord who, through some oversight, has made a mistake, and because of that is debarred from receiving a lesser sum than he is legally entitled to demand, this Clause is going very much further than is really necessary. I may have misunderstood the Minister, but I am in the recollection of the House, and I think he made that point, that though a landlord had demanded less than he was legally entitled to under the original Act, because of some mis-statement in
the demand on any point, he was debarred from any increase whatever.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated assent.

Mr. THOMSON: That is one matter, but does it require this Clause to do that? Would it not be possible to introduce amending words into Clause 3 which would provide that because of some unintentional misstatement the landlord should not thereby be debarred from receiving a sum which was less than he was legally entitled to if that was the sum he had demanded. I do not know whether I make the point clear but it seems to me that if that is all that was desired it does not require this Clause which may, if left to the Courts, enable the landlord to recover not merely the smaller sum which he has asked, but a larger sum to which he might be entitled if he had not made some misstatement originally. I put it to the Minister whether his own wording does not go much further than to relieve the case of hardship which he gave the House. I cannot but think that if he could meet the matter in that way it would remove some difficulty, though it would not remove the major difficulty of it being retrospective legislation. Surely if you are to have retrospective legislation for the landlord class why not have it for any other class of the community which, wittingly or unwittingly, has made these mistakes? We are on dangerous ground, and as the Clause has been shown possibly to do mare than the Minister really intends, he will be well advised to withdraw it and seek to put in amending words in another place which would do the more limited service which he outlined in his first speech.

Captain BERKELEY: I hope the Minister will see his way to meet the argument which has been put forward and repeated very often from this side of the House—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!

Captain BERKELEY: It has only been repeated because he has not answered it. No one wishes to inflict the repetition of an argument on the House, but if no attention is paid to it and it is substantial, we are entitled to press for an answer. This is an argument of substance, because the effect of the Clause is to make a fundamental change in the law of con-
tracts. If I enter into a continuing contract for a supply month by month, let us say of coal, to another person, and if I make a mistake in the contract and agree to supply at a price which is not going to be profitable, I can be kept to my contract, and if I break it damages can be recovered against me. The effect of this notice of increase is only to supplement a contract entered into between landlord and tenant. The landlord and tenant have agreed on a certain rent. Under the provisions of the Act the landlord is entitled to increase his rent. He decides upon an increase, and puts it in the form. That becomes, as it were, an annex to the original contract, and if you make it possible for the landlord, if he subsequently thinks he has not been quite fair to himself, to go to the County Court and have the contract amended, then it is perfectly just to say you are introducing class legislation, not in the sense that you are setting off dukes and earls on the one hand against working men on the other, but in this sense, that for the benefit of certain classes of persons who have entered into particular contracts you are modifying the existing contract law, which you are not prepared to do, and the House of Commons would hesitate very seriously in doing, for other contracting classes.

Mr. PRETYMAN: That is exactly what the whole Bill does from beginning to end.

Captain BERKELEY: That is true, but the reason for which the contract law has been amended is not in the interest of classes, but to meet a vital existing deficiency in the State. It is because of the shortage of houses. If the houses existed it would not be necessary to indulge in this kind of legislation, which I regret as much as the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I am sure all hon. Members regret the necessity of having to interfere with what the right hon. Baronet referred to as the law of supply and demand. But because it is necessary to do that in the big sense of making provision for the shortage of houses, it is not in the least necessary to introduce legislation in favour of one particular class of person to enter into contracts which you are not prepared to give other people who enter into contracts. The hon. Member for Woolwich referred very movingly to the hard case of the landlord who made a mistake in his percentage. I do not
really think it was a point of great substance. Equity is for those who keep their eyes open for their interests and not for those who go to sleep on their rights. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make a serious reply to this contention of the modification of the contract law, which we have not put forward in the least for the purpose of prolonging the Debate, but merely to point out what we think is an unfortunate and, I believe, quite unintended effect of the Clause.

Mr. GERALD HURST: I rise to deal with two fallacies to which hon. Members opposite have given expression. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) dilated at some length on the difficulty of a County Court Judge in dealing with the question of what Parliament intended by this Section. He knows perfectly well that no Judge would ever

deal with an issue of this sort in that way, because the issue is not what Parliament intended but what the actual language of the Section means, so that that point is absolutely irrelevant. The other fallacy to which hon. Members have given expression is the fear that the phrase "errors and omissions" might be used to cover material flaws and omissions. There is no need for that fear, because there is high judicial authority that the expression "errors and omissions" must be intended and considered to cover small immaterial errors and inaccuracies, and not reckless and careless mistakes and omissions of a large type. That fear is entirely misconceived.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 156.

Division No. 281.]
AYES.
[5.56 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gretton, Colonel John


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Clayton, G. C.
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)


Apsley, Lord
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Halstead, Major D.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Cope, Major William
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Harrison, F. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Harvey, Major S. E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Becker, Harry
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hood, Sir Joseph


Betterton, Henry B.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Houfton, John Plowright


Blundell, F. N.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hughes, Collingwood


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurd, Percy A.


Brass, Captain W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ellis, R. G.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jephcott, A. R.


Bruford, R.
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Buckingham, Sir H.
Eyres-Monsell Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lamb, J. Q.


Butcher, Sir John George
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lever, Sir Arthur L.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Button, H. S.
Furness, G. J.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lorden, John William


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Gardiner, James
Lort-Williams, J.


Cassels, J. D.
Garland, C. S.
Lougher, L.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Gates, Percy
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Lumley, L. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Privett, F. J.
Stanley, Lord


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Manville, Edward
Raine, W.
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Margesson, H. D. R.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Mercer, Colonel H.
Rentoul, G. S.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Murchison, C. K.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W)
Tubbs, S. W.


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Rothschild, Lionel de
Wallace, Captain E.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, S. R.


Nield, Sir Herbert
Russell, William (Bolton)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Winterton, Earl


Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wise, Frederick


Pease, William Edwin
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wolmer, Viscount


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Penny, Frederick George
Shipwright, Captain D.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Singleton, J. E.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Peto, Basil E.
Skelton, A. N.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Pielou, D. P.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)



Pilditch, Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Middleton, G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Millar, J. D.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, Harold


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Attlee, C. R.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Muir, John W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Groves, T.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Barnes, A.
Grundy, T. W.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)
Newbold, J. T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
O'Grady, Captain James


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hancock, John George
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Bonwick, A.
Hardie, George D.
Phillipps, Vivian


Briant, Frank
Harney, E. A.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Broad, F. A.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Potts, John S.


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Pringle, W. M. R.


Brotherton, J.
Herriotts, J.
Rae, Sir Henry N.


Buckie, J.
Hill, A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Burgess, S.
Hillary, A. E.
Riley, Ben


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Hogge, James Myles
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Chapple, W. A.
Irving, Dan
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rose, Frank H.


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Royce, William Stapleton


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Saklatvala, S.


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sexton, James


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenyon, Barnet
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shinwell, Emanuel


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lansbury, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Simpson, J. Hope


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leach, W.
Sinclair, Sir A.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lee, F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Duncan, C.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Smillie, Robert


Dunnico, H.
Linfield, F. C.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Ede, James Chuter
Lowth, T.
Snowden, Philip


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lunn, William
Spoor, B. G.


Edmonds, G.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
M'Entee, V. L.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
McLaren, Andrew
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West


Falconer, J.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Foot, Isaac
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Thornton, M.


Gosling, Harry
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'd'ne, E.)
Trevelyan, C. P.




Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Wintringham, Margaret


Warne, G. H.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Whiteley, W.
Wright, W.


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)



Weir, L. M.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Westwood J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Mr. Ammon and Mr. Mosley.

CLAUSE 6.—(Permitted increases of rent of sub-tenancies.)

(1) Where part of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies is lawfully sub-let, and the part so sub-let is also a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies then in addition to any increases permitted by paragraphs (a) to (e) of Subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act, an amount not exceeding ten per cent. of the net rent of the dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy shall be deemed to be a permitted increase in the case of that dwelling-house, and an amount equivalent to five per cent. of the net rent of the dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy shall be deemed to be a permitted increase in the case of the dwelling-house comprised in the tenancy.
(2) In Sub-section (6) of Section two of the principal Act the expression "landlord" shall, in relation to a sub-tenancy, be taken to include not only the person who is immediate landlord of the sub-tenant, but also the landlord of that person.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1).
The intention of this Sub-section is to permit a further increase of rent over and above the 40 per cent. of permitted increase in the Act of 1920. The Minister may tell me, as he told me upstairs in Committee, that this Sub-section is based upon the Report of the Onslow Committee, but I would point out that the majority were not agreed. There was a good deal of difference exhibited in the Committee with regard to the question of permitting any further increase by the chief tenant or superior tenant for sub-letting. The ground that was put forward by some witnesses was that the house-owner and the chief tenant or superior tenant were entitled to get some extra rent to be divided between them for the inconvenience and the extra wear and tear entailed by more than one family living in the premises.
I wish to draw attention to the very dangerous and disastrous consequences that may follow by making it possible for families to be congregated in houses of this kind, thereby leading to overcrowding. It was on that ground that the minority members of the Committee resisted very strongly the proposal with
regard to sub-tenancies. It was admitted even by the majority that the already permitted increase of 40 per cent. was more than the extra cost of materials and wages, which were very high. They have been very materially reduced. Some of the witnesses said that both wages and materials were down more than 50 per cent. Those who signed the Majority Report, and those who refused to sign, made it abundantly clear that they were satisfied that the 40 per cent. already granted, and which is continued in this Bill, was more than sufficient tee cover the extra wear and tear upon the premises where the families were two or three in number.
The householders or the houseowners are exceedingly well met when they continue to receive their 40 per cent. increase, and if they are allowed to put on another 10 per cent. in respect of houses that are occupied by two or more families, it will be very unreasonable and unfair. It is admitted that houses which were costing at the time the Committee sat £800 to £900 are now being built for £420, and houses that were costing between £600 and £700 are being built for £300. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) shakes his head, but I have seen the contracts being placed and the houses being built. I was a member of the Committee, and I know what the evidence was. I knew where the houses were that were being built, and the other houses are being built on the sites to-day at a much cheaper price. I hope the Minister will see his way to leave out this Subsection.

Mr. AMMON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think the full effect of the Subsection can be appreciated. Within a few weeks the sub-tenant will find an increase of another 10 per cent. put upon him, in addition to the 40 per cent., making 50 per cent. altogether. These buildings that are let in sub-tenancies are in a wholly different position from other houses. There are whole districts in Kentish Town, Lambeth, Islington, Hackney, Shoreditch, and the poorer districts, where these houses are let in sub-tenancies, and the
rent has always been calculated on a higher level, having regard to the additional wear and tear and the additional inconvenience of having more than one family in the houses. These high rents have already had the increase of 40 per cent. put upon them, and there is no case for a further increase under conditions such as these. There is a great deal of difference in houses that were let prior to the War in sub-tenancies, and those which are being sub-let now, but which were not originally built for being so inhabited.
On the ground that the landlords have had more than their share, I ask that this additional increase be not permitted. The 40 per cent. increase was largely given on the understanding that there should be 15 per cent. increase on the net rent, and 25 per cent. increase in respect of repairs, taking into consideration that the cost of repairs amounted to 150 per cent. over and above 1914 prices. The position now is that the cost of repairs has fallen to 80 per cent. That being so, the increase of 26 per cent. of the gross rent should more than meet every claim that the landlord may have in this particular respect. I hope that the Minister will try to see the matter from that point of view. If we take the rent in 1914 as £120, the net rent being £100, and £20 being calculated for repairs, that house receives another 15 per cent. in 1920 as the increase on the net rent and an addition allowed for the repairs. The position now is that these people, as the cost of repairs has fallen to 80 per cent., have still the 15 per cent. on the net rent, and an additional amount allowed to meet the increased cost of repairs, bringing the total up to £151, compared with £120 in 1914.
Clause 6 assumes that a sub-let house would cost more for repairs than a house let as a whole. If it costs, say, 25 per cent. more, I suggest that the landlord's 40 per cent. is more than met by the provision already made. Still taking the gross rent in 1914 as £120, and allowing £20 for repairs in 1914, if sub-let £100 and £25 for repairs, or a total of £125; in 1923 the position is that there has been added 15 per cent. on the net rents, 80 per cent. being allowed for repairs, giving an additional £45, which gives £160 as the rent, as against £120 in 1914.
The increase of 33⅓ per cent. would more than meet the cost of repairs. I suggest that there is no case made out on the figures for the increase of 50 per cent. for houses sub-let since 1914, and there is certainly no case in principle for it. Houses sub-let were always let at a higher rent because of the additional wear and tear and the additional inconvenience that arises. To put on this additional 10 per cent., over and above the 40 per cent., is to impose another 10 per cent. on tenants who, in the main, are the poorest type of tenants. On the other hand, the landlord has his 15 per cent., and, having regard to the very considerable fall in the cost of repairs—150 per cent. in 1920 over 1914, as against 80 per cent. now—it is making a present that is far too generous.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Many of the observations of the last speaker have been directed, not to the Amendment under discussion, but to an Amendment in his own name which is not now before the House. The Mover of the Amendment had two arguments. The first was that the landlord was already getting so large an increase of rent that it was not fair to give him anything more. I submit that that is an entirely irrelevant argument. We have already had a long discussion on the general question whether the permitted increase of rent should be allowed to remain or should be reduced. All the arguments that have been used on this Amendment are really directed to that general question. What we have to consider now is the question whether, where premises are sublet, it is fair that some extra rent should be demanded from the sub-tenant and divided between the tenant and the landlord. It is quite true that the Clause here is based on the recommendations of the majority of the Onslow Committee. They pointed out that there is a special wear and tear of buildings when they are sublet, and that the cost to the landlord is thereby increased. That is the foundation of the claim on behalf of the landlord that he should share in the increase of rent which will be permitted under this Clause. What is the tenant's claim? It is of a slightly different kind, but it was admitted by the last speaker that the tenant is put to special inconvenience by the fact that part of his premises is sublet and that people live in such close proximity to
him. That was the whole case put by the Onslow Committee, and in respect of which they recommended a provision similar to that in the Bill. I come now to the second argument of the Mover of the Amendment. He says he is against this provision, because it will lead to overcrowding. His argument was that the more you charge for premises the more people are likely to crowd into them. I should have thought that the reverse was the case.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: When wages are low it will not permit people to pay a high rent for a house, and they sub-let.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: An increase of rent does not cause people to flock into houses. An increase of rent cannot lead to overcrowding. The hon. and gallant Member must have some confusion in his mind on the matter.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: I did not develop that argument because I thought that it was apparent to everyone. If the rent of a house is increased there is an inducement for the tenant to get two or three families into the house in order to share the rent.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that the explanation will not make the matter any clearer to the House. What is the hon. and gallant Member's position? If these premises are sub-let a higher rent will be charged. Surely that is a hindrance to a sub-tenant taking the premises. I do not think there is much in this matter of overcrowding, which is not due to the rent being a little more or a little less but primarily due to the fact that there is a shortage of houses. When we have the shortage made up the overcrowding will no longer take place. It is true that if there was a sufficiency of houses the question of wages or the amount that a tenant can afford to spend upon rent may have something to do with his decision whether he shall go into sublet premises or take a house for himself. This matter was considered in Committee at some length. The Committee came to the conclusion that the Clause should be retained, and I hope that the House will support them in that view.

Captain W. BENN: First of all we should remember in dealing with this Amendment, that we are dealing with the
poorest class of tenants, people who have to occupy, to the extent of two or three families, one house and a small house at that—a condition of affairs which no Minister of Health can contemplate with satisfaction. The Minister has not used one argument which was used by the Onslow Committee and quoted upstairs, namely, that structural alterations have to be made which would justify an increase of rent. It seems to me that the Onslow Committee went wrong at that point, inasmuch as there is already, under the principal Act, a permission to increase the rent up to a certain percentage of the cost of structural alterations. On that point they seem to have overlooked the provisions of the principal Act. The Minister of Health today has used two arguments. The first is that we have already decided that 40 per cent. is a reasonable increase in the ordinary rent, and therefore that it is logical in these particular and special cases to permit a further increase. But on this side of the House many of us deny that in all cases 40 per cent. is a reasonable increase. We hold that it is an unreasonable increase in some cases, and that it is no argument for permitting a further unreasonable increase now. If the 40 per cent. makes a sufficient allowance for the additional cost which is involved in these sub-tenancies, surely that is an argument for not making any further addition to the 40 per cent. The second point of the Minister of Health I was totally at a loss to understand. Surely if rents are increased that promotes overcrowding. People with a limited income have to pay what rent they can afford to pay. If you raise the rent of a house by one-third it might be necessary to put three families into that house instead of two, because the income of the three families would be required to pay the landlord's rent. The argument of the Minister on this point struck me with amazement. The Amendment deserves the support of the House.

Mr. PRINGLE: The question is sufficiently serious to deserve some further attention. The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt at all adequately with the points put before him. In the first place, he believes that the Majority Report of the Onslow Committee must be taken as conclusive on this matter. In that relation it is only fair to observe that in many
other important matters with which this Bill deals the Onslow Committee's Report has been been turned down. The Onslow Report made very different recommendations in regard to decontrol from those which the Government have been forced to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled simply to say that the matter is concluded because the Onslow Committee have so reported. The question really is whether the basis upon which the Onslow Committee came to this decision is a sound basis or not. Is there any justification in the fact that a house is sub-let in enabling, first of all, the main landlord to obtain a higher increase of rent than he otherwise would have, and in allowing the tenant himself, in the position of a landlord, to exact more from the sub-tenant?
There are many cases in which you have sub-tenancies, where there would be less wear and tear than if you had one family occupying the house. You may suppose a case where a tenant has accepted as his sub-tenants a newly married couple and, in that case, there is likely to be less wear and tear than in a case where the house is occupied by a tenant with a very large family. Consequently, the basis of this differentiation is altogether unsound, and we should look at the matter from the wider point of view and ask whether, under existing conditions, there is any case at all for allowing a further increase of rent. It is admitted on the Ministerial side that the increases permitted under the principal Act were intended to be adequate to cover the various charges which then fell upon the owner in respect of repairs and so forth. It is now admitted that those increases are maintained in spite of a fall in costs and there can be no ground for a further increase such as is now suggested in this Clause. I know the hon. Baronet the Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn) has a different idea with regard to this matter of sub-letting and he says there has been a great deal of profiteering.

Sir WILLIAM RAEBURN: I will express my views upon that subject, if I get an opportunity.

Mr. PRINGLE: I refer to what the hon. Baronet has already said in connection with the new Clause, which he moved as an Amendment to this Bill. The
justification which he put forward was, that there had been an enormous amount of profiteering in regard to sub-tenancies, and that, as a matter of fact, the tenant had been able to charge increases of rent far beyond anything contemplated or permitted by the principal Act. The hon. Baronet's idea was, that the main landlord should be entitled to recoup himself to some extent for that profiteering. The Clause as it stands now does not deal with that situation at all. It means you are going to encourage the profiteers to charge more. If there has been profiteering as is alleged, you are going to allow the profiteer to charge 10 per cent. more and encourage the principal landlord to connive at that profiteering by allowing him to have a share of the loot. The Clause, as it stands, says not only is the tenant entitled to charge his sub-tenant on the increases permitted in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Sub-section (1), Section 2 of the principal Act, but he is to be entitled to charge 10 per cent. more of the net rent of the dwelling-house. Net rent is defined in the principal Act, and it is very important we should bear in mind exactly what that definition is. Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the principal Act states:
The expression 'net rent' means where the landlord at the time by reference to which the standard rent is calculated, paid the rates chargeable on, or which but for the provisions of any Act would be chargeable on the occupier, the standard rent less the amount of such rates, and in any other case the standard rent.
To disengage that paragraph from the verbiage with which it is overloaded the expression "net rent" is meant to imply the standard rent less the amount of such rates as would be paid in respect of the house. Then we come to the expression "standard rent" which means the rent at which the house was let on the 3rd of August, 1914, or if it was not then let the rent at which it was last let before that date, or in the case of a dwelling-house first let after the 3rd of August, 1914, the rent at which it was first let. The great majority of the cases of these sub-tenancies have arisen since 3rd August, 1914. It is precisely because there was no standard rent in relation to these sub-tenancies as there was in regard to other tenancies, that there has been the profiteering to which the hon. Baronet objects. Consequently, the net rent which
we have for the purposes of this Clause is really a profiteering rent. It is undoubtedly true that from 1915 onwards, in all these cases where sub-tenancies had become rife, you had profiteering going on in an increasing degree. What the Government is asking the House to do under this Clause is to sanction all the profiteering since 1915 and to say to the profiteer, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant; take another 10 per cent." I do not think that is a proposition to which the House ought to assent, and I do not think that is what the hon. Baronet would consider right.
I could understand having recourse to the reference committees provided under Part II because you have here no standard rent which is of any assistance in determining the just value of the sub-tenancy. You are on a profiteering basis in relation to the net rent here. You say: "As there has been profiteering in the past, let us put on another 10 per cent., and, in order to reconcile the principal landlord to the idea of his tenants making money, let him have 5 per cent. extra." Not only is this Clause not going to discourage profiteering, but it is going to continue and encourage and increase profiteering, and, therefore, it is contrary to the whole spirit and intention of the Rent Restrictions Acts. The Minister said overcrowding has no relevancy to this question, and that the fact that there were larger numbers of sub-tenancies now was not a matter that the House should have in mind when deciding the merits of this particular Clause. I submit that is a very important matter. Everybody agrees that these sub-tenancies are enormously increasing, firstly, because of the failure of two Governments to supply houses, and, secondly, because of the great fall in wages during the last two years. Had more houses been built at a reasonable rent, there would not have been so many sub-tenancies, and, owing to the fall in wages, large numbers who otherwise would have separate houses are compelled by their means to go into sub-let houses. In relation to these poor people, compelled by privation to live under overcrowded conditions, you further penalise them by increasing their rents under this Bill. On both these grounds it is unfair to allow this additional charge.
I put forward a further objection to the Clause. We have the benefit of the
assistance this afternoon of the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir Leslie Scott), and I suggest to him that some clearer way might have been found of stating the Government's intentions than this Subsection. It is almost impossible to conceive the selection of any words less appropriate to the matter. I read this Sub-section at least four times before I could clearly understand what the Government intended to do, and certain legal friends of mine have found themselves equally embarrassed in dealing with it. If you are enacting a Clause which creates such difficulty to people who have had some legal training, you are going to create considerable embarrassment among those people who are affected and who have not any legal trading. That is an important matter from the point of view of landlords, tenants and sub-tenants. We heard a great deal on an earlier Amendment about poor people who did not know how to fill up notices. How will the people affected know their rights under this Clause? How will they know what is to be "deemed to be the permitted increase"? Why "deemed"? Why introduce these strange words at all? Then there is the expression "the permitted increase in the case of a dwelling house comprised in the sub-tenancy." From the point of view of the layman, what is the dwelling house comprised in the sub-tenancy?
I have already read to the House the provision relating to net rent, and I ask how many people can clearly understand net rent as defined in the principal Act? The people immediately affected will have the greatest difficulty in knowing what they are entitled to under this Clause, and there are bound to be mistakes and if there are mistakes there will inevitably be litigation. Then you will have the Courts of Law interpreting a Clause which is admittedly as obscure as a Clause could be drawn. Nobody knows what the interpretation will be. You have here a Clause which combines in itself nearly every defect which a Clause can have. It is bad on the merits because there is no case for it arising out of the special conditions of sub-letting at the present time, and there is no excuse for giving permission further to increase rents. It is bad on the merits because it will encourage and increase overcrowding, and it is bad in point of form,
because it is so obscure that those affected will not understand it, and it gives rise to the greatest risks as to the final interpretation which the Courts will place upon it.

Sir W. RAEBURN: Knowing as I do the amount of work which is still before the House I have no intention of taking up too much time in replying to hon. Members opposite, but I am bound to make some reply to some of the statements which have been made. We have only had one hon. Member from Scotland taking part in the Debate, but he does not seem to know much about our Scottish practice in these matters when he talks about a 40 per cent. increase having been allowed. May I say, for the information of the House, that the 47½ per cent. increase has been whittled down to 13½ per cent. in Scotland? The landlord pays his tenant's flat rates and then is supposed to recover them. The corporation and the authorities look to the landlord for the rates, and he gets 2½ per cent. for the agreeable job of recovering them from the tenants. Then the landlord has to pay rates on his ownership, which is not the case in England. Look at the advances that have taken place. Look at the rate at which these rates have gone up—and we are faced now in Glasgow with another 6d. in the £, I understand, for education—so that that has brought the total increase that the Scottish landlord can get down from 47½ per cent. to 13½ per cent., out of which he has to pay his repairs, and other things. My hon. Friend says that the repairs are now down to a cost of 80 per cent. above pre-War. I have had a good deal to do with repairs lately, and I know that when I have asked my contractors, both in Surrey here and in Dumbartonshire, I can get no quotations less than 110 per cent. above pre-War. I do not know whether or not some fortunate people may have got it down to 80 per cent., but I have not been able to do so.
To return to the hon. Member who used to represent a constituency in Glasgow, but who now speaks for an English constituency, I knew very well that he would trot out this argument. He says that I have been up against profiteering, but that I am now supporting the Government in encouraging profiteering, in
licensing profiteering. He says I have said, "It is such a good thing that now we will legalise it and give the landlord his share of it." That is not the basis upon which this Clause is here at all. Any of us, especially those who have had their houses sublet by their tenants, know the extra wear and tear to which those houses are subjected when sublet, and I do not think the extra 5 per cent. allowed the landlord is more than trifling. It is nonsense to talk about this as an encouragement to overcrowding. Anyone who has been watching this subletting operation knows what exorbitant rents those tenants have charged their tenants. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) last night said that the worst tyrants were the tenants rather than the landlords, and he is right. I quoted formerly the great case of Kerr v. Bryde, in which Bryde had two rooms, and sublet one at more rent than he was paying, or, rather, that he did not pay, but at more rent than he was due his landlord for the whole house.

Mr. PRINGLE: Under this Clause he could charge 10 per cent. more.

Sir W. RAEBURN: It was not there a case of overcrowding. This man and his wife who took the sublet needed a house, and they had to take what Bryde was pleased to charge, and he charged them what I have said. What I regret is that it has not been possible for the Government to bring in some restrictions on subletting. No landlord, or any friend of mine, at least, wants to see a house sublet by his tenant to a family of six, seven or eight people. He wants it put a stop to, and in a great many cases we put in our leases or lets that there is to be no subletting, but where there is no such stipulation we have no control whatever over what the tenant gets in that way. I know the difficulty of preventing it by legislation, because there is a very large business done in letting houses for the summer months, and in subletting, and I can quite understand that there was an insuperable difficulty in the way of the Government, in a temporary Measure like this, dealing with that question.
It is not on account of the greed of the landlords that the Government are doing this. They are giving a very inadequate provision in many cases, and saying that when a tenant does sublet and is getting a benefit thereby, the landlord should
have something for the extra work entailed of putting the house in repair, and so on. Therefore, I have satisfaction in supporting this Clause. Let us disabuse our minds entirely of the belief that the landlords of Scotland, at any rate, are asking for an increase of rent. As I have said, the figures I have got show that this whole increase is 13½ per cent.

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Baronet the Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn) has been at great pains to prove to the House that the landlords in Scotland in particular have has the 40 per cent. increase of rent whittled down to 13½ per cent., but I am bound to say that he has submitted no evidence to justify that statement. With regard to the question of rating in Scotland, he forgot to tell the House that the rating system is precisely similar to that which was in operation before these Acts were passed, and, therefore, the landlord is in no worse position now, in that regard, than he was then. It is true that the landlords in Scotland pay a portion of the rates, but they have done so prior to the passing of these Acts, and I cannot see at all how they suffer because of any provisions of the Acts which we are now discussing.

Sir W. RAEBURN: May I point out the tremendous rise in the rates?

Mr. SHINWELL: The illustration which the hon. Baronet gave of Glasgow was the worst possible illustration he could have given, because there has been no rise at all in the rates in Glasgow, although there has undoubtedly been a very serious increase in the valuation, which may have meant a rise of some kind. As a matter of fact, Glasgow is not so heavily rated as are a very large number of other industrial centres throughout the country. The question of rating in Scotland and the differential treatment as between landlord and tenant in this connection appear to be somewhat irrelevant to the matter under review, however, and I want to approach it from the point of view upon which I thought the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) was about to embark, but which he stopped short of doing. I do so with great diffidence, because it seems to me to involve a clear understanding of the Clause we are now discussing. I join at
once with the hon. Member for Penistone in appealing for clarity in provisions which affect so very large a number of people. What is a sub-tenancy? Presumably it is the occupation of a portion of a house which in full is occupied by a tenant.
7.0 P.M.
Let us assume a case of a dwelling-house with 12 or 15 rooms, occupied by a tenant-in-chief, but sub-let, not to one sub-tenant with, say, a large family, because I observe that the hon. Baronet the Member for Dumbartonshire does not care at all for any encumbrances of that kind. They were all very well in the days before the War, but to have children nowadays seems to be a serious disadvantage. You have your dwelling-house, and you sub-let, not to one tenant, but to three or four young married couples, and they live, we will say, one couple in two rooms, another in three rooms, and another couple in four rooms, and so on. What is the position of those sub-tenants under this particular Clause? Does it mean that a 10 per cent. increase is placed on the complete tenancy, which is apportioned between the various sub-tenants, 5 per cent. of which goes to the landlord, or does it mean that each particular subtenant pays a 10 per cent. increase over the increases already provided for, 5 per cent. of which goes in each case to the landlord? I am justified in assuming that the latter is the correct view, because the Clause says:
Where part of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies is lawfully sub-let, and the part so sub-let is also a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies.… an amount not exceeding 10 per cent. of the net rent of the dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy.
and so on. What is a "dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy"? Surely a dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy is each part of the dwelling-house occupied by a sub-tenant. And so, as I say, you may have four, or five, or a whole series of sub-tenants, all living in separate rooms in a dwelling-house of 12, 15, or 20 rooms. To digress for a moment, let me say that you are going to perpetuate a system with which I am sure the hon. Baronet the Member for Dumbartonshire is perfectly familiar, since he knows so much about Glasgow, which obtains in the Cowcaddens district of Glasgow, where the poor people all pay very high rents under what is known as a sub-letting system, which is a disgrace to
civilisation. That is, however, a social question. I am concerned with explaining to the tenant, and to the sub-tenant, and, for that matter, to the landlord, what is their precise position in this matter. My submission is, with very great respect to the draftsman of this Clause and the right hon. Gentleman himself, that the Clause is far from clear, and that, as at present drafted, it would appear to be that there is to be, not merely a 10 per cent. increase—which may or may not be legitimate or judicious under the circumstances—5 per cent. of which goes to the landlord and 5 per cent. to the tenant-in-chief, but a whole series of 10 per cents. and 5 per cents. spread over a whole series of subtenants. That is my submission, and I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should face that issue as squarely as he possibly can. May I deal with a question which has given rise to some controversy, namely, whether the increase in rent, whether it be 10 per cent. as such, or a series of 10 per cents., which will lead to overcrowding or not? My view is that it is a very great inducement indeed to a landlord and to a tenant-in-chief to sub-let a dwelling-house if, by that means, there are to be derived greater emoluments from the possession of the house. They would much rather let the house to a series of tenants if greater profits are to be derived from that process than retain the house for one tenant or, say, a tenant and a subtenant, if there is no advantage to be derived by doing so. I submit that you are going to perpetuate a bad system, and to intensify overcrowding, and that you are not explaining to those chiefly concerned what is their precise legal position in the matter.

Mr. HARNEY: I, in common with a great number of others, start with the main difficulty of really understanding what the Clause means. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House if this is right. I understand that if there is a tenant and he has sub-tenants, just because he has sub-tenants he can start straight away and add 10 per cent. to the rent of each of those sub-tenants. Also, I understand that just because there are sub-tenants, and the tenant is therefore entitled to increase their rent by this 10 per cent., the landlord is also, by that fact, entitled to increase the rent he receives, not by half of what the tenant
receives from one sub-tenant, but by the accumulated halves of what the tenant receives from all his sub-tenants. That seems to me to be the literal construction of the Clause.
The first question I ask is this: What is the object in view? Is the reason, as was put by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn), because the landlord is subjected to great expense because of repairs, etc., and because he is subjected to great risks by reason of the fact that the tenant may put in an unruly sub-tenant? If that were the object I should have expected to see the compensation in the way of increased rent given to the landlord. I certainly am surprised to see the landlord being compensated for this extra cost and extra risk by the person who let him in for it, namely, the tenant, who is receiving 10 per cent., while the landlord is only receiving 5 per Cent. It certainly is an enigma. I think the only other answer is that it is desirable to encourage tenants further to sub-let. Upon what material has that desire arisen? Has it been found that the tenants at the present moment, without getting this increase at all, have been letting and sub-letting? I understood that one of the complaints against the Act, as it at present works, is that, there is too much sub-letting and too much profiteering. We are now told, however, "because sub-letting is contrary to the policy of the Act, and because profiteering is to be condemned, therefore we will pass this Clause, which encourages a bad thing—sub-letting—and gives 10 per cent. more to the profiteer." That is how it stands.
There is a third matter to which I would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The 10 per cent. increase is to the net rent. I can see a great deal of work for lawyers as to what is meant by the "net rent." As the law at present stands, where there was a dwelling-house cut up into apartments after the passing of the original Act, then the net rent would be the standard rent of the dwelling house, and the County Court Judge would apportionate it to the various apartments. Where, however, a house does not answer to that description, as a great number of houses now do not, I should take the net rent to be—there is no other way of getting at it—the actual rent that the tenant
receives from the sub-tenant. If that rent is 20 per cent., or 30 or 40 per cent. higher than it should be, the only effect of the Clause is to add the 10 per cent. to that amount. There is one other point. I understand that if a tenant has cut up his dwelling-house into three floors—floors A, B, and C—and sub-lets floor A, he is regarded by 10 per cent. If he sub-lets floor B, he is regarded by another 10 per cent.; but if he sublets floors A, B, and C, so far from being rewarded, he is turned out. That is an anomaly which is rather difficult to answer. The only conceivable answer to it is this—and here comes in the question of overcrowding—"We desire to discourage tenants from subletting the whole house, because that is proof that they really do not want the house, and they are merely speculating; but we wish to encourage tenants to sub-let as much as they possibly can, screwing themselves into one room, and by that means affording accommodation by multiplying overcrowding." There can be no other way out of it. If the desire be not to multiply overcrowding, why do you place a premium on a tenant occupying one room himself, and letting out as many of the other rooms as he can? The more he lets out, and the more people he crowds into that house, the bigger is to be his reward. For all those reasons, I think the Clause is, to begin with, very meaningless. When, by an operation of the brain, you do discover some real substance in the Clause, it drives us to credit the Government with objects in justification of which they have given no reasons whatever.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I ought to make some reply to the speeches of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell), who raised a very specific, and, I quite admit, a very important point. The point that was raised, and which was, I think, particularly developed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, was, how will the standard rent, or the net rent, of a sub-tenancy be determined? The hon. Member for Linlithgow suggested that there were two ways in which it might be determined. One way would be an apportionment of the rent of the whole dwelling-house, that part of the rent being appropriated to the sub-tenancy which was appropriate
to the size or proportion which that sub-tenancy bore to the whole tenancy; and another way would be to treat the sub-tenancy as a separate dwelling-house, with a standard, or net rent, of its own. He read the Rent Clause to mean the latter way, but if he will refer to the Report of the Onslow Committee, from which I will quote, on page 18, he will see that the passage, which deals with this particular subject and upon which this Clause was based, begins as follows:
It is also an undoubted fact that tenants who sub-let part of their house do so to get more than the apportioned value of the part sub-let in order to compensate themselves for the inconvenience which cannot be separated from sub-letting.
That clearly shows that in the minds of the Onslow Committee—who, of course, were giving a great deal of attention to this matter, and were having much evidence before them, and who, I think we may suppose, were well acquainted with the details of it—the net rent of the sub-tenancy was the apportioned amount of the total rent of the whole dwelling-house.

Mr. SHINWELL: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting, I should like to point out that I had that quotation to which he referred before me. May I point out to him that it only makes reference to a tenant, and to one sub-tenant. It does not refer to sub-tenants, but only to a sub-tenant, and it obviously implies the sub-letting of a part of a house to one sub-tenant, and not to a number.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite follow why that should make any difference. If there were more than one sub-tenancy there would be an apportioned value to each sub-tenancy, and the total rent of the whole dwelling-house would be sub-divided among the different sub-tenancies, giving the proper proportion to each, according to the amount of space taken up. I do not see that that makes any difference. It might very well be said that those words which I have quoted, although they show what was in the minds of the Onslow Committee, need not necessarily be taken as the last word on the subject, since they are not a judicial pronouncement, and, of course, that is so. I have an idea that there is a case recorded, on appeal, which finally decided this matter, and in the same
sense as the Onslow Committee had in their minds. I tried to get the case before the House, but unfortunately I have not been able to get it here. I have it in my mind, however, that that would be the way in which the net rent of the sub-tenancies would be determined. If that be so, then the particular objection—which I can quite recognise to be a serious objection—to the Clause, namely, that it gives 10 per cent. to a rent that has already been considerably increased, falls to the ground.

Mr. HARDIE: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn) is not in the House, because I wanted to protest against the statements he made with regard to the reduction of from 40 per cent. to 13½ per cent. Although the statement was challenged four times, he refused to hive any explanation of it. I do not know whether it is in Order, but I want to say that the statement is absolutely untrue.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to say that, but he can say that the statement was absolutely incorrect.

Mr. HARDIE: It is the same thing. Not only has he failed in the House when challenged to bring forward arguments to prove his statement, but in the Committee a similar charge also failed. I have amongst my friends the owners of property and factors of houses in Scotland, and I have taken the trouble since the hon. Member for Dumbarton was challenged to write to Glasgow and other districts and have discovered again that his statement is incorrect. The statement he made in regard to the sub-tenants and their children I found to be true, and I want this information to be given to hon. Members here, just as he was trying to bring his incorrect statement to the notice of English Members. I have made efforts to get a place to live in London to be near the House of Commons, and I have found when wandering round the likeliest places that as soon as I got a response to my ring at the door the question that was put to me first was: "Have you any family?" Getting tired of that at one door I replied to the question that I had some fine dogs, and the lady went into ecstasies, and asked me if I was in favour of the Bill now being brought forward by the right
hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London for the protection of animals. I made it quite plain that the first thing in life is to look after the children. The whole of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Dumbarton to-day is based on incorrect information, and his statements in regard to property in Scotland are also incorrect.
I want to make an appeal to the Minister in charge of this Bill that he should withdraw this Clause. If a Clause such as this is allowed to go forward I know what is going to happen in cities like Glasgow. The present system in Glasgow lends itself to cases of which we have just had a report, of 12 persons living in a room 12 feet square. What is going to happen is this: Just as wages come down, and young married couples with a constant increase of their family demanding more to be spent on the growing family find less is left with which to pay rent, it happens that instead of the people under a proper system getting into bigger houses as they get on and their families increase, they are compelled, owing to economic conditions, to start to divide their house with the increased family in order to keep off paying more rent. Take the people at certain works in. Glasgow who earn 30s. a week and have to keep then families on that. Life under these conditions is a constant sub-letting of the houses one to another. If this Clause is allowed to go through it is going to be used by the builders before another year is out as an argument for not building houses. They will say since the people have got into this system of living as subtenants to each other, since the houses have been divided up, there is no more demand now, and we will not go on building houses because there is no demand for them, the people having settled down into this sub-letting system. I appeal, therefore, to the Minister in charge to withdraw this Clause instead of trying to make inroads upon all that is worst in human nature for a gain of 10 per cent., to wipe out the Clause and put his energies into the building of houses, and not into passing such a Clause as this through the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put"

The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 138.

Division No. 282.]
AYES.
[7.22 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Frece, Sir Walter de
Nield, Sir Herbert


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Furness, G. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Gardiner, James
Paget, T. G.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Garland, C. S.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gates, Percy
Pease, William Edwin


Barnston, Major Harry
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Becker, Harry
Goff, Sir R. Park
Penny, Frederick George


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gretton, Colonel John
Perring, William George


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Peto, Basil E.


Berry, Sir George
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pielou, D. P.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Blundell, F. N.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Halstead, Major D.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Privett, F. J.


Brass, Captain W.
Harrison, F. C.
Rae, Sir Henry N.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harvey, Major S. E.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Raine, W.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Bruford, R.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Buckingham, Sir H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Rentoul, G. S.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Button, H. S.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hood, Sir Joseph
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Cassels, J. D.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Rothschild, Lionel de


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Clayton, G. C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cope, Major William
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Shipwright, Captain D.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Lamb, J. Q.
Singleton, J. E.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Skelton, A. N.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Lorden, John William
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lort-Williams, J.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lougher, L.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Stanley, Lord


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Lumley, L. R.
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Ellis, R. G.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Tubbs, S. W.


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Waring, Major Walter


Flanagan, W. H.
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Nall, Major Joseph
Wells, S. R.


Foreman, Sir Henry
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Forestier-Walker, L.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)



Wise, Frederick
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wolmer, Viscount
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel




the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harney, E. A.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Alexander A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hastings, Patrick
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, C. R.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Riley, Ben


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Batey, Joseph
Hemmerde, E. G.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Herriotts, J.
Royce, William Stapleton


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hill, A.
Saklatvala, S.


Bonwick, A.
Hillary, A. E.
Scrymgeour, E.


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Shakespeare, G. H.


Brotherton, J.
Irving, Dan
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Buckie, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Burgess, S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, J. Hope


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Sinclair, Sir A.


Chapple, W. A.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Sitch, Charles H.


Charleton, H. C.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Smillie, Robert


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Snowden, Philip


Collison, Levi
Lawson, John James
Spoor, B. G.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Leach, W.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lee, F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Linfield, F. C.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Thornton, M.


Ede, James Chuter
M'Entee, V. L.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Edmonds, G.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Warne, G. H.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Middleton, G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Millar, J. D.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Falconer, J.
Mosley, Oswald
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Foot, Isaac
Muir, John W.
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parker, H. (Hanley)



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Phillipps, Vivian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hancock, John George
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Ammon.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 135.

Division No. 283.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dem
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Brass, Captain W.
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Churchman, Sir Arthur


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Clarry, Reginald George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Clayton, G. C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Bruford, R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Barnston, Major Harry
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Cope, Major William


Becker, Harry
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Button, H. S.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cadogan, Major Edward
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Berry, Sir George
Cassels, J. D.
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cautley, Henry Strother
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Blundell, F. N.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isi'gt'n W)


Ellis, R. G.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lamb, J. Q.
Rothschild, Lionel de


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.
Lorden, John William
Russell, William (Bolton)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lort-Williams, J.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lougher, L.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Flanagan, W. H.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Foreman, Sir Henry
Lumley, L. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l Exchange)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Shakespeare, G. H.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Frece, Sir Walter de
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shepperson, E. W.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Shipwright, Captain D.


Furness, G. J.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Singleton, J. E.


Gardiner, James
Mercer, Colonel H.
Skelton, A. N.


Garland, C. S.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Gates, Percy
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)
Stanley, Lord


Gretton, Colonel John
Nall, Major Joseph
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Halstead, Major D.
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Harrison, F. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Titchfield, Marquess of


Harvey, Major S. E.
Paget, T. G.
Tubbs, S. W.


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pease, William Edwin
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Waring, Major Walter


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Penny, Frederick George
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wells, S. R.


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Perring, William George
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Peto, Basil E.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pielou, D. P.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hood, Sir Joseph
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Wise, Frederick


Hopkins, John W. W.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wolmer, Viscount


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Privett, F. J.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Houfton, John Plowright
Rae, Sir Henry N.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Raine, W.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hudson, Capt. A.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rees, Sir Beddoe



Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Rentoul, G. S.
the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Reynolds, W. G. W.



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Charleton, H. C.
Gosling, Harry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clarke, Sir E. C.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gray, Frank (Oxford)


Ammon, Charles George
Collison, Levi
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Attlee, C. R.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Groves, T.


Barnes, A.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Grundy, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Duffy, T. Gavan
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Duncan, C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland


Bonwick, A.
Dunnico, H.
Hancock, John George


Broad, F. A.
Ede, James Chuter
Hardie, George D.


Bromfield, William
Edmonds, G.
Harney, E. A.


Brotherton, J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hastings, Patrick


Buckie, J.
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)


Burgess, S.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hayday, Arthur


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Fairbairn, R. R.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Falconer, J.
Hemmerde, E. G.


Chapple, W. A.
Foot, Isaac
Herriotts, J.




Hill, A.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Hillary, A. E.
O'Grady, Captain James
Snowden, Philip


Hirst, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold
Spoor, B. G.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Paling, W.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Irving, Dan
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Phillipps, Vivian
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Potts, John S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Pringle, W. M. R.
Thornton, M.


Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Kenyon, Barnet
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, Ben
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Lawson, John James
Ritson, J.
Warne, G. H.


Leach, W.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lee, F.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Royce, William Stapleton
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Linfield, F. C.
Saklatvala, S.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Lowth, T.
Salter, Dr. A.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


M'Entee, V. L.
Scrymgeour, E.
Whiteley, W.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sexton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Shinwell, Emanuel
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Middleton, G.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Millar, J. D.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wright, W.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Simpson, J. Hope
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Mosley, Oswald
Sinclair, Sir A.



Muir, John W.
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Smillie, Robert
Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Lunn.


Resolution agreed to.

Sir W. RAEBURN: I beg to move, after Sub-section (1), to insert a new Sub-section—
(2) A tenant who has so sub-let part of any such dwelling-house shall, on being so requested in writing by the landlord of the dwelling-house, supply him, within fourteen days thereafter, with a statement in writing of any sub-letting, giving particulars of occupancy, including the rent charged, and should he without reasonable excuse fail to do so or supply a statement which is false in any material particulars he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two pounds.
When I moved these words as a new Clause, it was suggested that my proposal would come best as an Amendment to Clause 6. I put down this Amendment, because the landlord cannot possibly know what rent his tenant is getting for subletting unless he makes some return. I think it is quite reasonable that the tenant, if requested by the landlord, should be compelled to give that information.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: We cannot hear a word you are saying.

Sir W. RAEBURN: Hon. Members are making such a noise. The only means which the landlord has of knowing to what extent sub-letting is going on is by insisting on his tenant making out a return. Objection has been taken to the imposing of a penalty for refusing to supply this return or making a false statement, but my proposal cannot very well be carried out if there is no penalty
attached for refusing to comply, because the tenant would only have to snap his fingers at the landlord and make no return at all. I would point out that penalties are imposed upon the landlord for failing to comply with the Act, and I do not see why penalties should not also be imposed upon the tenant under similar circumstances.

Captain BRASS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir J. SIMON: I am not quite clear as to whether the proposal now before us is word for word the same as the proposal which was put down as a new Clause, or whether it has been modified in any way.

Sir W. RAEBURN: In essence, it is the same.

Sir J. SIMON: I feel some difficulty about this proposal, and I hope one of the Ministers in charge of this Measure will explain how this Amendment is going to work. The proviso is one which requires that
a tenant who has so sub-let part of any such dwelling-house shall, on being so requested in writing by the landlord of the dwelling-house, supply him, within fourteen days thereafter, with a statement in writing of any sub-letting, giving particulars of occupancy, including the rent charged.
I should like to hear from the Minister how this proposal is going to work. First of all, the proviso appears to be one which is not of continuous operation. The landlord may ask the question to-day,
again in six months' time, again in a year's time, and so forth. It has been said that this proposal will assist the operation of Clause 6, but I cannot see how that can come about. The first Subsection of Clause 6 merely provides that the landlord of a house may add 10 per cent. of the net rent of the sub-tenancy. I do not see how the net rent is going to be ascertained. In a vast number of cases there is sub-letting by tenants to sub-tenants at grossly excessive sub-rents. Am I to understand that the intention is to add 10 per cent. to that grossly excessive sub-rent? Is that the meaning of this Amendment? If that is not the meaning of the Clause, then what is the object of the landlord finding out what is the grossly excessive sub-rent? I very much question whether a number of people understand what Sub-section 1 provides. You have a tenant of a house who perhaps pays 10s. a week to the land lord. He has a sub-tenant occupying a portion of the house. In the vast majority of cases he overcharges that sub-tenant. It is a great scandal that he does, and I should be glad to find effective steps taken to stop him, but I do not find them in this Bill.
Suppose he overcharges the sub-tenant by charging him for only half the house what is the rent of the whole house, what good does it do the landlord to find that out. If it is only to enable the tenant, who is already overcharging his subtenant, to overcharge him more by adding another 10 per cent. then I can understand it, but I cannot understand how any Government could propose so ridiculous and so unjust a provision. If, on the other hand, you mean that this additional 10 per cent. permitted is 10 per cent. on the properly apportioned rent, the standard rent for his portion of the house, then since in some cases there is an overcharge what good does it do for the landlord to ascertain what is being charged the sub-tenant? The thing does not hold together. The only explanation that will make it plain to me is the suggestion that the Bill is at present incomprehensible, and will become more incomprehensible if this proviso is adopted. No doubt my Noble Friend has some view as to what this sub-section and proviso mean and I should be very glad to hear from him what it is.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Lord Eustace Percy): I am prepared to accept this Amendment. As regards the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the new Sub-section not only enables the landlord to get information as to the amount of rent charged, but also as to whether there is or is not a sub-tenant. As regards the statement as to the amount of rent charged, that I think must be taken in connection with the Clause which gives the landlord the power, which he has hitherto never had, to go to the County Court to get an apportionment of the rent as between the tenant and the sub-tenant. The sub-tenant who wants at present to escape from additional rent has to go to the County Court himself against his landlord who is the tenant of the house. This is a thing which very few sub-tenants like to do. Therefore the landlord will be able by going to the County Court to get the County Court statement as to what is the apportioned rent. He will be able to calculate the net rent. On the net rent he will be able to calculate what is the amount which is due to him from the tenant in respect of the sub-tenancy, and under this new Sub-section he will also have the power to find out whether the tenant is, in fact, charging only the permitted rent to the sub-tenant or whether he is charging more. There are many landlordq who wish to find that out, and I think that it is in the interests of the community that a landlord should ascertain that. I agree with the hon. and learned Member to this extent, that this power which is proposed to be given by the new Sub-section will be far more effective and far more useful after the landlord has been to the County Court and has found out the permitted rent than it would be before he has been there, but, taken in conjunction with his power of going to the County Court, I think it is a very good Amendment.

Sir J. SIMON: Will the Noble Lord consider whether or not this ought not to be amended by limiting the landlord's right to make the inquiry and secure the punishment of the tenant in the manner and to the cases which he has himself indicated by introducing a proviso that it may be done after the landlord has exercised his power and got the subtenant's rent properly fixed?

Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid that that would not do, because there are various cases in which the permitted rental has already been fixed. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should be so anxious that the landlord should not have the right to get this information.

Sir J. SIMON: I am not in the least anxious that the landlord should not have proper information, but I am anxious that the House of Commons should not pass a Bill which, to the best of my own understanding, is at present nearly unintelligible, and will, I think, become quite unintelligible when this proviso is put in.

Mr. POTTS: Assuming that the landlord, the tenant and the sub-tenant appear in Court and are called upon to go into the witness box, will they be, by law, compelled to answer questions? So far as I understand, there is no law to compel either landlord or tenant to give any evidence in the box if he does not care to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask for information, which I understand is available, as to the course of business during the night?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETAR to the TREASURY (Colonel Leslie Wilson): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I have his instructions to say that he realises that the House would like to have as much time for the Third Reading of this Bill as possible, and, as the House was up fairly late last night, if hon. Members opposite will agree, it would be convenient that we should finish the Report stage at a conveniently early hour tonight—that is not later than about half-past twelve o'clock. In such a case the Third Reading could be taken on Friday. But it is the general view in the House that the Bill standing on the name of the Noble Lady for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) should be taken in the earlier part of Friday. Therefore the proposal is that the first two hours on Friday should be devoted to that Bill, and the remaining three hours on Friday to the Third Reading of this Bill, if that he acceptable to all parties in the House.

Mr. CLYNES: I can speak for a very large number of Members of the House
when I say that they welcome the terms of the statement which has just been made, and will be glad to help to give effect to them, but perhaps it would be possible for us to conclude the business to-night somewhat earlier than 12.30?

Colonel WILSON: On behalf of the Government, I may say that we shall be glad to conclude the business at the earliest possible hour.

Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has not been following this Debate, is willing that it should come to an end as speedily as possible, but in view of the importance of the issues yet to be discussed, I do not think that anybody is sanguine enough to imagine that the Debate can be concluded much before half-past twelve o'clock, and at the same time allow a reasonable discussion of the important matters which have still to be thrashed out. With regard to the proceedings on Friday, are we to understand that if the Debate on the first Bill is not concluded at one o'clock then the Adjournment will be moved?

Colonel WILSON: There is a distinct understanding that if the Debate on the Report stage and Third Reading is not concluded at one o'clock, the Government are prepared to move the Adjournment.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: With regard to the appointment of the Reference Committee and what may be called the constitutional position of that Committee if appointed, many of us think that that is a legitimate subject of Debate which should be discussed fully and frankly, though not at undue length.

Mr. VIVIAN PHILLIPPS: I agree with the suggestions which have been made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury as to the hour at which we may conclude our proceedings to-night. What we on these Benches have undertaken is to do our best to facilitate the conclusion of the proceedings on the Report stage at a reasonable hour, on the understanding that we shall have the Adjournment moved on Friday on the first Bill, if it lasts longer than the first two hours of that day.

CLAUSE 7.—(Excessive charges for furniture, etc., taken over in connection with tenancies.)

(1) Where the purchase of any furniture or other articles is required as a condition of
1269
the grant, renewal, or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies, if the price demanded exceeds the reasonable price of the articles, the excess shall be treated as if it were a fine or premium required to be paid as a condition of the grant, renewal, or continuance, and the provisions of Section eight of the principal Act, including penal provisions, shall apply accordingly.
(2) Where a tenant who by virtue of the principal Act retains possession of a dwelling-house to which that Act applies requires that furniture or other articles shall be purchased as a condition of giving up possession, if the price demanded exceeds the reasonable price of the articles the excess shall be treated as a sum asked to be paid as a condition of giving up possession, and the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section fifteen of the principal Act (including penal provisions) shall apply accordingly.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "if the price demanded," and to insert instead thereof the words
the price demanded shall be stated in writing and if such price.
The object of this Amendment is to protect the tenant. In many cases landlords make a little extra when they are letting by asking payment for the keys and for other matters, and we want to protect the tenant so far as that is concerned, in cases where the house is furnished. I have been discussing the matter with some of my colleagues and I have met the Minister of Health, and I believe that he is accepting this Amendment in order to protect the tenant.

Mr. SPEAKER: There will be a consequential Amendment.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Yes.

Mr. McENTEE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

8.0. P.M.

Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "if the price demanded," and insert instead thereof the words "the price demanded shall be stated in writing, and if such price."—[Mr. Griffiths.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Restriction on right to possession in certain cases, after the expiry of the principal Act.)

(2) For the purpose of the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Section, the Court
may direct that the tenancy of the sitting tenant shall be treated as a subsisting tenancy notwithstanding the determination of the same by any notice to quit or similar notice or otherwise and may set aside and annul any such notice accordingly, and shall have power to determine what increase of rent (if any) is fair and reasonable, regard being had to the character and condition of the dwelling-house and the rents of similar dwelling-houses in the locality.

(4) In order to assist the Court in the determination of questions arising under this part of this Act in relation to the rent, character or condition of dwelling-houses, the Minister of Health may establish reference committees to whom such questions may be referred by the Court for consideration and report, as the Court thinks proper.

(5) The foregoing provisions of this Section shall not apply to proceedings against a sitting tenant under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, and any such proceedings shall, on the application of the sitting tenant, be discontinued, subject to any provision that may be made by Rules under this Part of this Act for transfer to the County Court.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert a new Sub-section—
(3) The Court shall not exercise any of the powers given to it under the foregoing provisions of this Section in any case where it is satisfied that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord by the exercise of the power than would be caused to the tenant by the refusal to exercise it.
The Noble Lord will remember that this proposal was under discussion in Committee. At that time, the Minister was not quite clear whether it was necessary in order to give effect to what both he and I, and, I think, most, if not all, members of the Committee desired to do. I undesrtand my Noble Friend is going to accept the Amendment, and, therefore, I will simply say that what it provides is this: The early part of this Clause contemplates that, in the event of proceedings against a person who, on the 24th June, 1925, is tenant,
should it appear to the Court that the proceedings are harsh or oppressive or that exceptional hardship would be caused to the sitting tenant by the making or giving of an Order or judgment for possession or ejectment, the Court may refuse to make or give such an Order or judgment or may adjourn the application for or stay or suspond execution of any such order or judgment,
and so on. The point of my Amendment is to provide that the Clause shall work
fairly between landlord and tenant, that where it is a question of greater hardship to the landlord that he should be deprived of the possession of the dwelling house, than it would be to the tenant to be compelled to leave, the Court may have power to take that into consideration. I think it was generally felt in Committee to be a reasonable thing, and the Minister undertook to consider the matter between then and this stage. I rather gather that the words of my Amendment meet the situation in the view of the noble Lord.

Lord E. PERCY: I am very glad to accept this Amendment. I think it is clear that the wording follows on the lines of the wording already existing in other Sections of the Act in regard to relative hardships, and I hope the House will be prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4).
The Committee will observe that this Sub-section seeks for the first time to set up what, I think, the Minister of Health himself described as a novel proposal, and, in fact, I suppose, for the first time in Parliamentary history, sanction is now being sought to establish statutory committees, and to give to such committees rights and duties as to rent to be paid in connection with house, property in this country. I think, at any rate, it deserves some little time and consideration from the House of Commons. One of the remarkable features of the proposal is that it is not to come into operation until two years have elapsed from the present time. Another feature to which I would call special attention is that it may well be that this will be the only Parliamentary opportunity of discussing the proposal, and the first point I desire to make to the Government is that I think it is an unwise thing to endeavour to anticipate a condition which may arise two years hence. A great deal may happen between now and the time when Part II of this Bill comes into operation.
As I have stated previously in the Debate, I think the suggestion that there should be gradual decontrol is a good one. It certainly gives some hope to the people who invest money in property, and who
erect houses, that at some later stage decontrol may absolutely take place. From that point of view, there is much to be said for the proposals, outlined, it is true, in very vague and indefinite terms, in Part 2 of the Bill. But it is sought under this Sub-section to introduce fresh procedure altogether. As the House knows, hitherto very difficult tasks and duties, which have been imposed under this and other legislation, have been entrusted to County Court Judges. Opinions may differ as to the suitability of that tribunal, but, from my point of view at any rate, as far as experience of this country is concerned, County Court Judges have carried out their duties, I believe, sympathetically, and with a view to doing justice, and certainly in the interests of landlords and tenants. If any criticism is to be directed to their jurisdiction, it is perhaps that they have erred, if anything at all, upon the side of the tenants of this country.
Therefore, the first question I desire to put to the Government is, in what way have County Court Judges failed to carry out their duties, and why is it necessary to add any further machinery in connection with a matter of this sort? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, in putting forward this proposal on the Second Reading of the Bill, stated that it was a novel suggestion, and, as far as I am aware, it has not been asked for by any particular body of opinion, by any Committee which has been set up to consider the matter, or by any association of people who are concerned either with the interests of landlords or of tenants, and, as far as the attitude of the parties in the House is concerned, I think it can be fairly said that it has not been accepted, at any rate, in the present form, by any party in the House. I understand the Labour party would like to have rent courts absolutely independent, and able to come to a conclusion, on their own account, without any reference to any judicial tribunal at all. I think that is a fair statement of what it is they require. As far as I am able to ascertain the Liberal party desire that there should be some form of tribunal, probably with an appeal to the County Court, but which either the tenants or the landlords would be able to approach, and that they should be called upon in that particular connection to give a decision. As far as my own party is
concerned, I do not think there has been a single speaker who has spoken from the Conservative benches who has supported this proposal. Rightly or wrongly, it is looked upon as establishing a new and dangerous principle in this country, and one which should, at any rate, be approached with considerable caution. If, for instance, the Onslow Committee had looked into this matter, and made a recommendation of this kind, it would no doubt have had attached to it a curtain amount of weight. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health was able, for instance, to say to the Committee to-night that the County Court Judges had met and had stated that they required assistance of that kind, I have not the slightest doubt that the representations of those very hard-worked members of the judicial bench would receive a good deal of consideration from the House of Commons.
But, as far as I am aware, no County Court Judge has at any time expressed the opinion or the desire to have the assistance which my right hon. Friend proposes they should have under the provisions of this particular Sub-section. It is true that one of the County Court Judges has on various occasions advocated the setting up of a rent tribunal, but I have at no time observed that any member of the County Court bench has asked for the assistance of committees of this kind, and I venture to put to my right hon. Friend that the proposals embodied in this Sub-section have a double disadvantage. I can well understand that there could be a good case made out for the establishment of rent tribunals which could come to a final determination, and by that means relieve the County Courts of a good deal of work, with which, unfortunately, they are considerably burdened at the present time. But that is not my right hon. Friend's suggestion. His suggestion is that these reference committees should be set up, if and when he desires, and that the County Court Judge himself should determine whether he desires a report from a particular reference committee. That, at any rate, is not going to relieve the congestion of the County Courts.
I understand that one of the strongest arguments put forward for this proposal is that by some means or other these committees are going to relieve the
County Court Judges of many of their duties, and take over a good many of their responsibilities in the administration of this Bill. I candidly confess I cannot see the justification for that argument, because, in fact, while the County Court Judge may receive a report from a particular reference committee, as many hon. Members who are members of the legal profession are well aware, he is by no means bound by that report, and, what is more, the parties to the dispute in the County Court are certainly not bound by it. The result may well be that when the County Court Judge receives a report from a reference committee, he will no doubt give consideration to it, but he will be bound, under the conditions which always obtain in our Law Courts, to hear the evidence, to have the witnesses examined, to give due weight to their evidence, and in fact, to try the issue together with the report which he will receive from the reference committee. Therefore, so far as relieving the congestion of the County Court is concerned, I venture to think it is more likely to add to its difficulties and responsibilities. No doubt one of the issues which will centre in the particular matter before the County Court will not only be the matter in dispute between the parties, but the facts in the report of the reference committee, and whether they are right and reasonable. It is in that connection that, so far from relieving the congestion of the Court, so far from lessening the time occupied by the cases, it may very well add to it. There is no doubt that if one of these certificates brought to the County Court Judge is in favour of the landlord the tenant will immediately bring every possible evidence, and as many witnesses as he can, to displace the findings of the committee. There is no suggestion in the proposal contained in this Clause that the County Court Judge must accept the report of the reference committee. He has to receive it, but he is still bound to follow out the usual procedure of the Court in this connection. Therefore I put it very strongly that the idea that this will relieve the congestion of the Court is a misconception, and that it may well add to the difficulty of administering a very complicated statute.
Another question which I venture to address to the right hon. Gentleman is this. Why does he want to set up new
machinery at all? If there is anything to be said for having the advice of a particular body of men, why does the right hon. Gentleman not look to the very many existing authorities? It might very well be that a sub-committee of the housing committee of the local authority could deal with the task which is here provided for. It appears to me that at this time, when there are so many different authorities up and down the country, one really ought to be trying to get the advice of the local administration rather than to set up another body. It is a mistake to endeavour to set up still one more body and one more committee to deal with matters of this sort. It will undoubtedly add to the expense of these proceedings. It will mean fresh machinery. In many cases it will mean the appointment of an additional official, and from the tenants' point of view it will be very detrimental, as they already have to face one hearing before the County Court Judge, and this will involve facing another hearing before the reference committee. I submit that this proposal is not only unnecessary, but in many respects it will prove cumbersome, and, I repeat, in many cases it will be detrimental to the tenant.
My last point of objection to this particular Clause is that it will add to the uncertainty of the law which already unfortunately prevails in connection with house building, if you are to have a fresh tribunal to put into operation this Act. People who lend or borrow money on house property will begin to think there is going to be some authority interposed between them and then ordinary rights as borrowers or lenders or as purchasers of property, and I venture to think it will be well for my right hon. Friend on this ground to reconsider his proposal. It is not as if the matter need be left entirely to the County Court Judges. They will no doubt be able to carry out this task, but if they are not able to do so there are certain other means on the Statute Book by which they can get assistance. The work might be handed over to the Registrar, or the County Court Judge might appoint assessors. I think the proposal to set up this new machinery needs much more consideration than it is possible to give it at this stage. I want my right hon. Friend to-night to leave the matter open. He is now in this Clause giving the County Court Judges
an opportunity to go to the reference committee only. I should like to extend the Clause and to put in as an alternative the power to appoint assessors, or to go to a panel, or to obtain the assistance of the Registrar of the Court.
The strongest objection to this proposal at the present time is the fact that, under the Clause, there will be very little opportunity for Parliament to discuss this matter two years hence. The strongest objection that can be taken to this proposal is that we may pass a Clause to-night, and two years hence there will be no real Parliamentary opportunity for further discussing it. If the right hon. Gentleman can amend the Clause so that this matter may come up again for discussion in this House two years hence, when we shall know much more of the facts in regard to housing and shall be able better to judge if there is a sufficient number of houses built to justify us in putting the Clause into operation, I think it would relieve much of the anxiety that is felt in reference to this Clause at the present moment. But to put forward a Clause which has been asked for by no one, which has been objected to by every party in the House for one reason or another, and to provide no further opportunity for Parliamentary discussion of it is very undesirable, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to make such a statement and to give such an indication as to his future intentions with regard to the Clause as will enable us to concur more fully with him than we can at the moment. For these reasons I move this Amendment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some indication of much more definite proposals than he has at present outlined, and that he will indicate that an opportunity for full Parliamentary discussion shall be available two years hence from to-day when this matter will again be before the House.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
After the very full statement of my hon. Friend, but few words are necessary from me. It seems to me it is almost impracticable for this House to be legislating now on a position which we cannot possibly foresee as occurring in two years time. If this reference committee is going to be good in two years' time, why is it not good now?
There is no provision for it in the present machinery, and I do not see why it will be any more advantageous in two years' time than it is now. I can see my right hon. Friend's objective, which is to let decontrol down as gradually as possible. I can understand that, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) that there is considerable anxiety in all quarters as to what may be the outcome of this reference committee. I presume that we may now discuss the whole question that is raised by Sub-section (4) of Clause 10, by which the committee is appointed, and by Clause 12, in which the constitution of the committee, as far as it is stated, is defined. I take it that the whole question is open on this Amendment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think Clauses 10 and 12 hang together so much that it would be in order to discuss them both, but, of course, no such discussion can be repeated on Clause 12.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I take it that this Amendment will dispose of the whole question.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I hope it may not be taken that this Amendment disposes of all the Amendments on Clause 12. If I were so fortunate as to be called on this Amendment, I should have to refer to Clause 12, but I suggest that there are specific Amendments also.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I can relieve the anxiety of the hon. and learned Member. All that I ruled was that this could be discussed with Clause 12, but that such a general discussion could not be repeated. Specific Amendments, however, will not be cut out.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Thank you, Sir; I quite understand. I hope that when my right hon. Friend deals with this Amendment he will explain exactly what his intentions are, because we are really discussing this matter in the dark. In Clause 12 we are simply told that
The constitution and procedure of reference committees established under this Part of this Act shall be such as may be prescribed by Regulations made by the Minister of Health.
Anything more absolutely vague than that it is impossible to conceive. The matter may have been discussed in Com-
mittee, but very few of us were present in the Committee, and as the matter now stands it is very vague. We have no idea of the kind of constitution that these reference committees are to have. Are they to be composed of tenants and representatives of landlords, or are they to be composed of independent people, rather of the nature of a panel of expert valuers, who would have no particular leaning towards either landlords or tenant; or what class of person is to compose these reference committees? I attach the greatest importance to the last suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich, that this matter should not be definitely decided now, but should remain in skeleton form if it is to remain at all. I would much rather see it taken out, but my right hon. Friend has very skilfully conducted this Bill, which is one that he did not himself introduce, but has inherited. I do not know whether it would have been exactly in this form had he been responsible for it, but he has inherited it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I can allow that to pass. My right hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that some part of the Bill was drafted before I took office, but for the major and most important part I am personally responsible.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I am glad to take that correction. I was under the impression that the Bill had been drafted for some time. I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that it will go a long way to satisfy me, certainly, if it can be made perfectly clear that this proposal will be discussed in the light of the then position in 1925, when it is to come into operation. For instance, we do not know, and it is a very important matter, what proportion of houses in June, 1925, will remain under control, or will not have been decontrolled. No one can possibly form any conjecture as to that. No Member of this House will get up to-day and venture to prophesy what percentage of houses will have been decontrolled under the provisions of this Bill before the 24th June, 1925. It may be that the situation then, on account of the number of houses that have been decontrolled, and having regard to the number of houses available, will make it unnecessary to set up this additional cog in the already complicated machinery of this Measure. I am sure
there will be no disagreement on either side of the House that, so far as this Measure is concerned, it is an unpleasant necessity, because when we interfere with the ordinary law of supply and demand, and we meet with difficulties at every turn, which have to be met by some fresh provision, creating enormous complications—complications of such a character that they were bound to induce difficult drafting and careless drafting, the Bill is rather hurried, and endless litigation results which is good for no one. Anything, therefore, which adds complications, or which prolongs this awkward situation, is necessarily objectionable, and we do not want to bind ourselves to go on with these reference committees in two years' time unless it is absolutely necessary.
The mere fact that Orders are to be laid on the Table in the ordinary way, and that those Orders will become operative unless a Resolution is passed in both Houses of Parliament against them, which is the ordinary provision, does not appear to me to be adequate to meet the situation. We are legislating entirely in the dark. We are creating an indefinite body. We do not know exactly what its duties are. Its powers are very limited, but there is always the feeling which was referred to by my hon. Friend, and which may have a very considerable effect on the degree of confidence with which people will undertake building enterprise. They know that some aspirations have been expressed on the other side of the House about rent Courts and interference with the rights of owners of house property, and they naturally are suspicious that, once this machinery is created, it can be very easily expanded by a short Bill, and the power of these bodies can be increased. At present, under Sub-section (2) of Clause 12, they can only deal with rents when a case is submitted to them by both the landlord and the tenant. There cannot be any very great objection to an arbitration, which everyone would agree is preferable to a law case, where both parties are willing to submit the matter to arbitration; but that could quite easily be expanded, and, on every ground, I think that this legislation upon which we are embarking in this Bill is already sufficiently obscure and sufficiently complicated, and is already giving rise to far too great a crop of liti-
gation. Anything that will tend still further to complicate matter is, I think, very much to be deprecated, and I strongly support my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Sir R. ADKINS: I want to ask the Minister two or three questions in reference to this matter. I approach this discussion, so far as one knows one's own mind and one's own position, in a mood of entire detachment from the ordinary controversy on this subject, but I must say I am rather startled at the presence in this Bill of a provision like the one to which this Amendment is directed, and the consequent provisions in Clause 12. Here is a proposal to set up what is called a reference committee, in Clause 10, for one purpose, and in Clause 12 for another purpose, by machinery so constructed as to leave to Parliament the least possible control or opportunity of intervention and consideration. I may have an opportunity on Clause 12, but in any case I do not want unnecessarily to repeat what has already been said; but one has to note the fact that these powers in Clause 10 and in Clause 12 are to be exercised by an Advisory Committee appointed by the Minister of Health, working under Regulations as to which there is no real Parliamentary control whatever. That matter of letting these things lie on the Table of the House to become law unless there is a Motion of both Houses, is one of those farces that ought to be brought to an end once for all. In the last Parliament several of us, in regard to certain matters of the Ministry of Transport, with the help of certain Lords in another place, were able to get the converse method into more than one Act of Parliament, and when it is necessary for any Department of State to issue Regulations under any Act of Parliament, those Regulations ought only to have force when there is a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament adopting them, and not wait until what everyone knows—Ministers, the Government, the House, and the country—the impossible happens and the House of Commons or the House of Lords or both pass some Resolution condemning it. That may have been quite appropriate in days when the adjustment between the Royal Prerogative and the rights of the Commons of England were in process of discussion and settlement. It is entirely out of keeping with the con-
ditions to-day, and the Department loses in confidence what it thinks it gains in power if it tries to work this method of Regulations without deliberate Parliamentary sanction to them before they become effective. Therefore, I am sorry my right hon. Friend, whose connections, hereditary and personal, are so close with local self-government and so effective and able in that sphere, should bring forward a proposal which has this curiously unwholesome stamp upon it—this out-of-date method, no longer appropriate to present conditions.
What is that my right hon. Friend is proposing to do in this most unsatisfactory way as regards the regulations? He is proposing to appoint an Advisory Committee to act, two years hence, under conditions which no man can now foresee, but when two years have passed to be in a position to appoint Advisory Committees without there being any effective opportunity for either House of Parliament to apply to the problems of that hour the knowledge which will then be possessed. I want to analyse the two distinct proposals. I have no objection in principle to Rent Courts at all. At some periods in history and in some places Rent Courts have been absolutely indispensable in the public interest. As and when proposals for that are brought four squarely before this House of Commons, I trust we shall consider them carefully and with the only object of trying to get machinery which will help in equity and peace and confidence among the persons concerned. It is quite another story to give some hint of something of that kind under circumstances and arrangements which remove it from direct Parliamentary consideration and direct Parliamentary decision. That, of course, is apparently what is meant in the second Sub-section of Clause 12. Whatever views are taken by different Members as to whether Rent Courts are good things or not, let us fight that battle frankly as and when it is raised squarely before the House. I hope my right hon. Friend is not wedded to taking some vague and yet unrestricted power to create something of that kind without further reference to Parliament and without the matter having been thoroughly thrashed out. So much for the second Subsection of Clause 12.
Now for the Sub-section in Clause 10 in which these Advisory Committees are to advise. This brings me to the point which has made me most anxious, Sir, to catch your eye and submit one or two considerations which, so far as I can judge, are entirely free from any party or controversial reference. We all pride ourselves in this country upon the purity, the integrity and the intelligence of our judicial system, and it is an axiom of political science that a country develops in stability the more you are able to separate the administrative sphere from the judicial. We all know how they can be mixed up in war time. We have all seen, in one form or another, the chaos which comes whenever you blend the two together, as you have to do in the stress of a great war, but here we are dealing, I grant, with a very serious problem which is one of the many consequences of the Great War and its economic dangers and difficulties. But at the same time, up to now, the decision as to whether in any particular case a house shall be occupied by A or by B. when both have claims to it, but the other will have a real grievance if he does not win the case—that sort of thing up to now has been decided solely by County Court Judges who are trained in legal matters and infused with the proper legal spirit and who decide these things, I am confident, without conscious bias, and certainly without the least disposition to shirk a very difficult and delicate decision. A number of whom I know. Several of them are Persons with whom I have had the most intimate friendship for many years, and there is no part of their work which is more difficult or more trying or to which they feel the necessity of bringing the most rigorous trouble and impartiality. What are you proposing to do? If you have a committee merely to advise, you cannot have an Advisory Committee on a particular case. That is merely to darken counsel. You could only have an Advisory Committee properly on administrative matters laying down general rules or general lines of guidance in matters of administration.
I am afraid we have not had a very close exposition of it, but I do not quite see how this is going to work, and I will call my right hon. Friend's attention to Section 103 of the County Court Act, by which it is open to any County Court Judge to appoint assessors, who shall help
him with their special knowledge in any case in which he thinks it would be of value. There is nothing in that Section to limit the number of them. I have known, and many hon. Members have known, case after case where that has worked exceedingly well. In a case in which there has been a conflict of doctors, where an eminent local doctor has been called in as an assessor, with his special knowledge of the technicalities and details of medical controversy, it has been of the greatest help. Similarly, I have known builders called in when the question had to do with technicalities or the quantities of building, and so on. If there be circumstances such, for instance, as a case whether a cottage has to be reserved for a person working on a farm, not in the interest of the man or the other man but in the general interest of agriculture, and, presumably, of the country, there may well be an expert, who need not necessarily be a land agent. He may very well be the representative of great trade unions, like the Agricultural Labourers' Union, who may be in an admirable position to assist the County Court Judge in his decision. My point is, that any help in the form of advice to a Judge in his functions can best be given by one or two assessors appointed for the purpose by the Judge himself rather than by a vague committee appointed, not by the Judge but by a Government Department, who are concerned with administration and are not concerned primarily with the process of justice. I am not in the least unfriendly to the right hon. Gentleman, whose very skilful handling of one of the most difficult problems has been notable; but I do ask him not to muddle up administrative and judicial spheres by talking about an advisory committee, who are to advise the Judges on how they should act. If, on the other hand, his Department wants consultative or advisory committees, let him remember that his predecessors, and possibly himself, have already appointed such committees. There was a very famous one, of which Lord Dawson of Penn was Chairman, and another of which I had the honour to be a member for some years, and of which people connected with local authorities were members. You can have consultative committees without any fresh Act of Parliament. You can have assistance given to
the County Court Judges without any fresh Act of Parliament. You can have a Rent Court whenever you bring it before the House of Commons, and the House of Commons approves of it. Is there any need to have this vague machinery detached from Parliamentary control, with, apparently, no precise and well-defined functions, and with no clearly cut statement as to the circumstances under which it will function. Is it necessary to have all that, for one vague indefinite part of the Measure while the rest of it has been put forward in an eminently clear and businesslike way? Whether we think my right hon. Friend is right or wrong, there is no doubt that in the future he will be proved to be right and wrong sometimes, but for the most part he has been clear and businesslike, and I do ask him whether there is any possible reason for so constructing and arranging this provision that Parliamentary control over it is really no control at all.

Mr. G. W. H. JONES: Whatever concession the Minister of Health may make, I hope he will not abandon the principle of having some committee of some sort to settle the problems that will arise. I differ entirely from hon. Members who have spoken on this side, because I think, essentially, that this is a question that ought not to go before a County Court Judge to be decided upon narrow and very difficult technicalities. It is, in the main, an administrative question, which a committee could deal with very well. I do not in the least agree with the form that the proposal takes in the Bill. It is provided that the Judge can send matters to the reference committee for consideration and report. Supposing a man is legally represented. He has to pay one fee to go before the Judge. That fee will be exhausted when the matter is referred to the committee for consideration. When their report comes in, one of the most important things of all will take place, and that is, whether the Judge will follow the report or not. Then there will be a third set of fees incurred. It is lamentable that we should draft a Bill which will involve people, many of them people of small means, in three sets of legal costs, in order to get what may be a comparatively simple question settled. What I suggest to the Minister of Health is that this Clause should be altered so that the Judge has not to send the matter
to the reference committee for consideration and report, but to be determined. That is not a novel thing. Already the High Court Judges have power, which they constantly exercise, of sending awkward and complicated cases, involving a lot of calculations, to a special referee. I suggest to the Minister of Health that permission might be made that these questions might be sent to the reference committees for the purposes of determination.
Nine cases out of ten that come before the Courts to-day are in the main questions of reckoning up the amount of rent due. The standard rent is quite clearly defined, but it is very difficult to know what the standard rent was nine years ago. When you find the standard rent, all the rest is a mere matter of arithmetic, and it is absurd to go before a Court of law for the purpose of entering into calculations which are merely arithmetical. The bulk of the people who will go to the Law Courts under this Bill will be people of comparatively small means. Those people with some means, or with prudence, have good advice, and they can generally manage to keep out of the Law Courts, and to let other people make the law far them. They keep on the safe side. I do suggest that the machinery here provided is extremely unsuitable. Why do you want a County Court Judge or a trained lawyer to reckon up 75 per cent. of 10s.? The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) says that nobody has asked for these committees.

Sir K. WOOD: Not these particular committees.

Mr. JONES: I agree there, because it is a hybrid proposal that nobody ever thought of; but I differ from the hon. Member if he says that nobody has asked for any committees. The idea of having committees instead of having to go to Court has been advocated by many people. People say, "Why do we want to go to a Judge and incur legal expenses?" I know from my own experience that one very large tenants' organisation is in favour of the idea of having committees instead of Judges to decide these questions. The hon. Member for West Woolwich said that there is no request from the County Court Judges. Of course, there is not. Nobody who knows the Judges would expect them to make such a request. They think, as one of them
said before the Onslow Committee, that they are performing a useful duty, and they are willing to continue it if Parliament wants them to do so, and they will not complain; but the County Court Judge who said that, and expressed his willingness to continue the work, has to sit in Court until six or seven o'clock, day after day, trying to get through the work. He may sit until 12 o clock.
A great deal of criticism has been made as to the provisions of Clause 12 in the Regulations. It is said that they are very vague. It is well that they should be vague in the Bill, because if you draft Regulations otherwise, lawyers will bring forward all sorts of points as to mandamus, etc. It is better, so long as you have the root idea, to put it vaguely in the Bill, and to let the Minister draw up his Regulations. We are putting work on tribunals already seriously overcrowded. They have more work than any other Courts that I know of. They are extremely congested. When you are going back three years on the question of rent you nearly always get an amount which represents a very considerable sum in costs. Supposing there is a dispute between a landlord and tenant for 2s. or 4s a week and it goes back over a period of two years to the 1920 Act, you get an amount over £20, and that involves the parties in £25 apiece, party and party, in costs. The people may have a bona fide dispute. There is no dishonesty on either side, but simply a difficulty in arriving at the exact amount. I have known of a case where four people have been held liable to pay, in addition to their own costs, £25 to the other side. Do not let Members of the Labour party run away with the idea that the landlords under this Bill are rich men. Very often landlords under this Bill are people who do not own a brick. The tenant who sublets is liable to pains and penalties. From my own experience, the landlord who is landed in unsuccessful litigation is often as poor as his tenant, and he has not the means of taking advice that some landlords in much bigger circumstances can do. I hope that the Minister will stick to these proposals in the Bill, and that he will re-cast Clause 4 on the lines which I have indicated, or on some other lines, so as to make a really workable measure. I want to see these disputes taken away from the Law Courts, to which they ought never to have gone, so that people who
have a bona fide difference of opinion can get a case settled without being over-weighted with the knowledge that if they lose they will be bowed down with expenses out of all proportion to the sum involved.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed the opinion that on Part II there would be a greater difference of opinion than on Part I. In stating that view I had particularly in mind the provisions which are the subject of the Amendment now under discussion. Of course I was not unconscious of the fact that the mere suggestion that Committees of this kind should be set up might give rise to doubts and fears, particularly on this side of the House, lest I should be doing something which would eventually lead to the setting up of permanent rent courts. Perhaps those doubts and fears have been strengthened by the sort of observations which have come from the opposite side in Committee upon this part of the Bill, in the course of which hon. Members on the Labour benches have made it clear that this is what they desire. But that is not news to us; it is what we would naturally expect; and it is a matter which we have to face, whether we put it in this Bill or not. I think that perhaps my hon. Friend has a greater faith in the willingness of the Labour party to be restrained by precedents than I have. I have always thought that they would make their own precedents.
I would like to try to meet, so far as I can, the objections that have been raised. It is my fear that I cannot please all my hon. Friends. One of them is in favour of the very thing which is anathema to another. One is anxious that I should so recast this Sub-section as to make it what it is not to-day, and provide for the actual inception of rent courts. On the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) pointed to the word "jurisdiction," which occurred in what is now Clause 12 of the Bill, and he asked what jurisdiction it was proposed to give to this reference committee. Jurisdiction had really no place in the Bill, and I have now taken it out of the Bill. So far as the functions of the reference committees are concerned, they are confined either to acting as an advisory committee
to the County Court or as arbitrators in a particular case where matters are referred to them by the tenant and the landlord. But as to the matters which it is contemplated that these committees might consider and report on, there seems to be considerable misunderstanding, because two versions have been given by hon. Members. Both were quite wrong. One of them spoke as though they would have to advise as to who should inhabit a house, whether the existing tenant or whether the landlord should get possession of it. That is not so at all. There is no question of advising whether the occupant of a house on a farm is to remain there.
9.0 P.M.
If the hon. and learned Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) would look at the Bill he would see that the only questions on which they may be asked to advise the County Court are instances arising under this part of the Bill in relation to the rents, character or condition of dwelling-houses. In Clause 10 it is stated that an increase of rent which may be decided upon must have reference to the character and condition of the dwelling-house, so that when these words are again used in Sub-section (4) the character and condition of the dwelling-house are to be considered merely as they may affect the amount of rent which it may be fair and reasonable to charge. The hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. G. Jones) spoke as though all they had to do was to make some mathematical calculation. The House will see that the questions which they have to determine go very much further than that. These are not questions which can be decided by reference to a ready reckoner; they are questions of what is fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of a particular house, having regard to the number of circumstances specified in the earlier portion of the Clause. Therefore that makes it clear that skilled assistants, of which my hon. and learned Friend spoke, are not substitutes for reference committees for this particular kind of work. It is possible that County Courts may desire to make use of assistants in considering questions even under this part of the Bill. I agree that in that case they will have power under the Section quoted to appoint them. But it is clear that if they are to be experts upon these particular questions, they are to be found
among people who have some special connection with property, either as tenants or as landlords, or it may be as surveyors and valuers.
Another criticism has been made. It has been said that all this is so vague and so uncertain that nobody can tell what it means and that that uncertainty must, in the process of time, react upon the situation generally as regards new houses. I cannot deny there is a certain amount of force in that contention, but can we get rid of the uncertainty? Granted we are going to have control of one kind or another for a certain period of time, is it not certain in that case, that so long as that control remains there must be a certain amount of doubt as to what the position of the landlord is going to be under that measure of control? It is not so much the case of the erection of houses, because as has often been pointed out, new houses do not come under control. It is a sort of psychological effect which is produced in the minds of people who used to, and who might now, invest money in property by the fact that property of this kind is still subject to certain restrictions. Although anything which is uncertain about this part of the Bill must to a certain extent have that deterrent effect upon the investment of money in house property, yet I do not think that the particular Sub-section which we are discussing and the reference to these proposed committees, really adds very much to the uncertainty which must inevitably attach to this whole Measure.
There is a reason for this vagueness which has been criticised, and I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) when he said it was highly undesirable we should be tied down too definitely to what exactly we are going to do in two years' time, when conditions are going to be so different from what they are today. I entirely agree. That is the reason why this part is vague. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middleton very kindly said that up to now I have been clear except upon this point. If I may put it so, I am clear upon this point. I am clear that it is a point on which it is not desirable to be clear. I say you cannot tell to-day what are going to be the conditions in June, 1925; what is going to be the pressure on the County Courts, and so forth. The
hon. Member for West Woolwich, I think, mentioned that a demand had been made by County Court Judges for further assistance. That is not in connection with what is going on now, but what may go on after the first period of control comes to an end. I think when that time approaches, when we see how many houses have come out of control, how many new houses have been provided by building or the conversion of old houses, then both we and the County Court Judges will have a much better idea as to whether the situation is such that they can easily deal with it themselves or whether they will need some assistance. I should desire myself to consult County Court Judges on this point, which I think is one upon which their advice would be invaluable and, indeed, almost essential. I do not desire, even in the matter of the composition of the reference committees, to be pressed to settle at this stage, more definitely what their composition is to be. I think it is very much better that that matter, too, should be left to be decided later. The House will observe that although Sub-section (4) states that the Minister of Health may appoint these committees, it does not say that he must do so, and, in fact, I contemplate, as one of the possible alternatives, that no reference committees need be appointed at all. But if they are appointed, then, just as I would rather postpone until I have a more reliable acquaintance with what the position is going to be, the actual appointment of the committees, so I would rather postpone until then the question of their composition.
From both sides of the House—and this is the only point on which there was anything like unanimity—there was a request to me to give greater Parliamentary control over the Regulations which, under Clause 12, would govern the constitution and procedure of these reference committees. I am asked to give greater Parliamentary control than is provided by the procedure there set out. I should like to say that from the first it has been my genuine desire that Parliament should have full control of these matters. What I have to consider is whether that control should be given by Regulations under the existing Bill or whether I should take the only alternative course, namely, to introduce another Bill in the early part
of 1925. It seemed to me there was a good many objections to the latter course. Another Rent Restrictions Bill! Surely the country is tired of Rent Restrictions Bills, and would be glad to be spared another one. Surely that would, above all other things, add to the uncertainty of the future. It would be said: We are going to have another Rent Restrictions Bill, and who can tell what sort of Bill that will be? Who can tell what sort of thing it will be by the time it becomes an Act? It seemed to me, therefore, much better to settle the policy now, once and for all, and leave the details to be filled in nearer to the time, and in such a way that Parliament will have full control, and will be able to say whether it likes or dislikes any particular proposals which may be brought forward and will have power to annul them altogether if it is thought they are on wrong lines.
That was what I thought I had done in the Clause as it stands to-day. Since it was my intention and desire that Parliament should have the fullest possible amount of control, I have been considering an Amendment down in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middleton, the result of which would be to give a more positive diree tion to the procedure, so that when these Regulations are laid upon the Table they will not become operative unless both Houses of Parliament pass a Resolution in their favour, whereas under the proposal now in Clause 12 they would become operative unless either House passed a Resolution against them. I should be very willing to accept that proposal. I feel it is only carrying out the intention which I have had all along, and I hope the effect will be to satisfy hon. Members who have any doubt or fear as to what may be done under this Clause in the future. I hone it will satisfy them that what we are, in effect, doing is to postpone our decision as to whether there are to be reference committees or not, and, if if there are, what sort of committees they shall be, until a date when we are better able to consider the whole situation with full knowledge and decide on the best thing to do.

Mr. FOOT: Whatever may be the ultimate decision arrived at by this House, there will be great gratification at the announcement that has just been
made by the Minister of Health, acceding to what I think is a wish that will be shared by all parties. I was much impressed by what was said by the hon Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. G. W. H. Jones) as to the necessity of making some, provision against considerable expenditure upon legal proceedings. Whether hon. Members belong to the legal profession or not, they will, I am sure, all be willing to join in any scheme that will save at any rate the poorer tenants from having to incur large sums in the way of legal expenses. When he referred to the expenses that were incurred, I think he said, on fighting a case of a few shillings per week going over two or three years, that the expenses might amount to £25 upon each side, I think he must have been referring more to the practice in London than in the provinces, for such figures as he quoted would make the mouth of any of us provincial lawyers water. Such high figures are beyond our imagination altogether. If it were proposed in this scheme, and now suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in the latter part of this Bill, that we should have reference committees that would lift out from the Courts altogether these decisions as between landlord and tenant, I think a great deal more could be said for that proposal than can be said for the Clause in this Bill.
As the Bill stands at present, we are only adding another trouble, we are only adding to the legal processes that are at present necessary, or that will be necessary in 1925, a further process, and that is the fear that I have. I think that he himself gave a clear indication of what might happen when he suggested that there might then be three contests, where, if the landlord and tenant were both represented, considerable expenditure in legal fees would be involved. It may be suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that in the Regulations which will then be proposed legal representation should be excluded. I think that in turn will meet with great opposition, and opposition, I think, from the people themselves. When it was suggested, in connection with the military tribunals, for instance, that legal representation should be done away with, the people themselves whose interests were concerned insisted upon having the advantage of legal representation. Here, I think, where a man's interests might be very closely involved, he is entitled to ask
for legal representation, and if he is excluded from that, there will be discontent upon that ground. If his demand for legal representation is acceded to, there will be, first of all, the contest when the matter first comes before the Court, there will be the legal representation probably before this shadowy committee—for it is shadowy at present—and there will be the further contest when the Judge himself deals with the matter later on, so that we are not dealing now with the comparison of the use of the ordinary Courts of the land—the County Courts—and the use of an outside committee, which would commend itself to many in this House, but we are simply adding one further process to a process which is already expensive enough.
We are committing ourselves, as the right hon. Gentleman said—and that is the difficulty—to a policy which, I think, grafts upon our law as we have it to-day something hitherto unknown. Will the House consider what will be the constitution of these committees? The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) suggested that the committees might consist of members of the local authorities. I should object strongly to any such constitution, for this reason: The local authority is very often formed on strictly party lines, and when we come to constitute our committees, the membership of the committees is very often worked out on the same basis as the representation of the parties within the council. The housing committee, to which he referred, would be constituted upon party lines, and if they themselves appointed the reference committee, there would be upon it so many Conservatives, so many Labour men, and so many Liberals, according to the numbers of those parties upon the appointing body. When we deal with a matter involving tenancy to-day, we have this advantage, that the parties know, when the case is fought out, that it is a decision above any corruption or influence. There is not a County Court Judge in then land who would not be just as jealous as the highest Judge in the realm to resent the approach by any person interested in his suit. That would not be so if we were dealing with a local committee. We know what happened with the military tribunals during the War, the disgraceful back-scratching that went on, and the personal influence that was brought to bear. It is
inevitable if you have a committee consisting of a number of local representatives that influence will be brought to bear upon the members—it may be political influence, it may be influence that comes from business acquaintanceship or from personal friends.
Therefore, I think it is difficult for us to arrive at a decision to-day, until we know what the constitution of the committees will be. It is all very well saying we ought to commit ourselves to a principle and leave the constitution until a later date, but the constitution may be everything, and I suggest that where it is now proposed that we should put another ring around the house, and where we are giving to the parties concerned three legal fights, instead of one, the best course we could take—and we appreciate the fairness with which the right hon. Gentleman has laid this matter before the House—is not to commit ourselves to any definite policy to-day, but to wait, and realise what the circumstances of the next two years will enforce upon us, and in any event, if we decide upon the advantage of an outside committee, a reference committee, an expert committee, as against the ordinary courts of law, to decide fairly between two systems, and not to graft the later system upon the earlier and introduce into the administration of our law, affecting closely the interests of large numbers of our people, some idea which is entirely strange to all the laws as we have had them. I am only anxious in this matter that we shall not give an added burden to the people of this country, and particularly to the poorer tenants of this country, and I would ask the House to remember that we are not proposing here to set up a reference committee that will deal with all the difficulties between landlord and tenant; it will deal simply with the houses to which, in 1925, the principal Act will apply, so that there will be only a certain number of houses in this country—how many, I cannot now say—that will be dealt with by the reference committee, whereas all the houses at present over the rental limit, all the business houses of the country, and all the houses that have become decontrolled will be outside the advantage or disadvantage of the reference committee.
If it were suggested that in 1925 all houses in this country could be dealt with in this way, that disputes relating to
these properties could be dealt with by this new system, I think there would be a great deal more to be said for the argument, but I think it is an additional objection against the proposal that is now made that it will apply only to certain houses that will accidentally come within the definition that will then have application. I suggest that, seeing that the position in two years' time is so uncertain and doubtful, it would be far better for us then to decide, with such wisdom as we can acquire in the meantime, as to what is the best system we can apply in dealing with the properties concerned.

Sir F. BANBURY: I thoroughly agree with every word the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) has said, except that I did not quite agree with his last sentence, when he said that there might be something in the proposal if it would apply to every class of house, and not only to the houses which will be decontrolled in 1925. I hope I am not going to repeat anything which was said when I was not in the House, but in confirmation of what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said, may I point out that the great principle and the great jewel upon which English law is based has been the fact that Judges have never been appointed by the Ministry, but always by the Crown, that their tenure of office is permanent, and that their salary is not subject to discussion in either House of Parliament. Are we going to change that, and to put forward, under the guise of a Committee, a judicial body appointed by a Minister? I do not know who is going to pay their salary. Probably it will be paid by the Minister who appoints them, and consequently they will be subject to any influence the Minister may bring upon them. Are we going to do that, and to jettison all the principles which have made English justice the first in the world, either in the past or at the present time? I sincerely hope we are not, and I shall be very pleased to accept the suggestion made by the Minister of Health, provided that we can be quite certain what that suggestion is. As I gather, from what he said, it is this, that in 1925, should he be desirous of setting up reference committees, he will come down to this House and lay upon the Table the proposals he intends to make.
This House will then have an opportunity of considering them, and that opportunity will not be after 11 o'clock at night, but on an ordinary day, at the ordinary time of business. Then, unless this House or the other House both agree with the proposals of my right hon. Friend, those proposals will fall to the ground.
I do not know whether I have put that clearly, but what I want to secure is that this House, and the other House, shall have a proper opportunity, when we can all be present, wide awake, and not asleep, at the commencement of business, to consider whether or not these committees should be set up. I want to guard against the possibility of the Minister coming down and saying, "The House has already agreed to the establishment of these committees; all we have got to consider is what powers they are to have." I want it to be clearly understood, if we withdraw the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and myself, that nothing can be done until a new proposal has been submitted under this Bill to this House and to the other House. If that be done, so far as I am concerned, I shall be very glad to accept the proposal of my right hon. Friend, and I thank him for having made it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my right hon. Friend has correctly interpreted the suggestion that I made, except, of course, that I cannot commit the House two years hence as to the particular time of the day at which consideration of the proposals shall take place. That the House must decide for itself.

Captain BENN: It is decided by the Government Whips.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are various ways of making those arrangements, which are not unknown to my hon. and gallant Friend. My right hon. Friend is perfectly correct in saying that that is the suggestion which I propose, and if I, or the Minister of the day, desire to set up reference committees, he or I would have to bring down to the House and lay upon the table Regulations showing what the constitution and the procedure of the committees are, and unless this House, and the other House, passes a Resolution confirming those Regulations, they will be null and void.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any undertaking that the discussion will be at a time of day when we shall all be here?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the House will allow me, as the Mover of this Amendment, to express my thanks to the Minister of Health for the very handsome way in which he has met the objections from this part of the House. I think he has dealt very fully and very fairly with the situation. All we ask is that the House shall have an opportunity, in the light of the events and of the facts which may well occur in the next two years, of again considering this matter, and of again coming to a conclusion as to whether these particular committees shall be set up or not. In that respect, the right hon. Gentleman has very amply met us. Two years hence I hope he will still be here, and will occupy the same position. I hope also that all the other hon. Members of the House will be equally present to take part in the discussion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Captain BENN: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I must congratulate the Minister of Health on averting a very dangerous catastrophe. For days there has been a serious revolt among the Government supporters, which has been repressed. It was led by a very distinguished but, as we gather from the Press, a transient figure in this House, the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), supported by one of the most vigorous Members of the last Government, who was a right-hand man on the Front Bench. They objected to these Reference Committees, and the Minister has made a speech, has given compliments, and has made promises, and they have come forward and, with overflowing gratitude—with almost inordinate and incommensurate gratitude—they have thanked him for meeting their serious attack and for making concessions in virtue of which the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is proposing to withdraw his Amendment. What exactly has the Minister given to these desperate mutineers? First of all, he has not accepted their Amendment; that Amendment he simply refuses to accept. The ultimatum, so far as that is concerned, is ignored. Then he says to
the hon. and learned Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir R. Adkins), "I will accept an Amendment of yours, and these Regulations, when they come before the House, shall not require to be corrected, they shall require to be confirmed." What, precisely, is the difference between those proposals?
The right hon. Member for the City of London, who is a master of the procedure of this House, knows perfectly well that his proposal that those Regulations should come before the House at a reasonable hour will never be met, for the simple reason that those Regulations will be laid before Parliament in pursuance of this Act when it is passed. Any matter laid before Parliament in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, is exempted from the Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House at 11 o'clock. Therefore, those Regulations will be matters so exempt. I have yet to see, whatever Government is in power, a Government Whip who is willing to give daylight hours to a matter which can be considered after 11 o'clock. These bargains do not exist in regard to exempted matters. They will get anything in after 11 o'clock that they cannot get in before that time. The concession does not appear to be very good. What are the concessions? Whereas it is proposed the Regulations should be laid and anyone should be at liberty to come forward and say, "This one should be omitted and this one amended" the Government concession is that they require a motion to be put forward that they be approved. What is the difference between these two proposals? Absolutely no difference at all. The hon. Member will come forward and say: "I wish so-and-so to be omitted." The Government Whips will be put on and he will be defeated. What he has gained is this, that the Government Whips will take the initiative on what is required to be approved. He will say: "I do not want to approve of that." The Government. Whips will be put on again, and again he will be defeated. The summing up of the whole matter is this, that the revolt is over, that peace has been restored in the ranks in return for a concession which is worth nothing whatever.

Amendment., by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Sir William Raeburn.

Dr. CHAPPLE: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment on the Order Paper: in Sub-section (4) to leave out the words "the Court" ["to assist the Court"].

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment to leave out Sub-section (4) has been withdrawn, and, therefore, the words remain and that covers the case of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries.

Sir W. RAEBURN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5) to insert a new Sub-section—
(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section one of this Act, Section seven of the principal Act shall continue to apply to a mortgage on a dwelling-house in respect of which the making of an Order for possession or ejectment is opposed by the tenant on any of the grounds referred to in Subsection one hereof until the determination of the proceedings, and in the event of the Court refusing to make or give an Order or judgment, or adjourning the application, or staying or suspending execution, or postponing the date of possession, or directing that a tenancy shall be a subsisting tenancy, the Court shall have power to deal with such mortgage as though Section seven of the principal Act applied thereto.

Dr. CHAPPLE: On a further point of Order. I have a further Amendment to Sub-section (4), after the word "Court" ["to assist the Court"], to insert the words "or by a landlord or tenant," and a further Amendment on the next line. Are these also out of order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As I have said, the Amendments are covered by what we have previously done. Apart from that, Mr. Speaker has ruled that certain selected Amendments shall be taken, and I cannot deviate from that rule.

Dr. CHAPPLE: On a further point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that even in the Committee upstairs this Bill was taken on one day when the Housing Bill was taken and the Minister himself was not present, and on another day when the Scottish Estimates were taken and the Scottish Members were required in this House. I would urge you, respectfully, to exercise more freely your power of selection, and, if in order, to give this House the opportunity of discussing other Amendments.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot go beyond what I have said and beyond what Mr. Speaker has ruled.

Sir W. RAEBURN: I think there is great reasonableness in this Amendment. After June, 1925, there is sure to be a request or a demand from many landlords for an increase in rent, but you cannot proceed at once on the 24th June to put the sitting tenant out of the house. You have to go through some legal process, if a man objects either to the additional rent or to move. Sheriffs and Courts of Law have of recent times been taking a very lenient view in regard to arrears, and have been lenient where a man has admitted he owed the money, but said that he could not at present pay it out of his small income. After 24th June, 1925, hundreds if not thousands of tenants will come under decontrol who so far have been allowed to remain. What is to be done with them, and what is going to happen to the mortgagee or the mortgagor in relation to the property involved.

Mr. HOUFTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The object of this proposal is to give some protection to the mortgagors who find themselves unable to get possession of their house, and who may, if the mortgage is foreclosed, be unable to replace it. The Government have considered this matter, and I think my hon. Friend has a case. As the hon. Member seems to anticipate the words which he has chosen, and the particular form of his proposed Amendment, are likely to give rise to certain difficulties. In the first place, he refers to Section 7 of the principal Act, and proposes that the Court shall have power to deal with such mortgage as though that Section applied thereto. That reference will no longer exist, because when the Act comes into operation that part of the Act will already have expired.
I have tried to find some other form of words which I could suggest to the House, but I do feel that there is a great objection to bringing in manuscript Amendments at the last moment when they refer to such a complicated matter as this. It seems to me, therefore, that if anything is to be done to meet this case it would be much better that it
should be done in another place, so that when it comes to this House hon. Members may have it on the Paper instead of attempting to deal with it now. Therefore I suggest to the hon. Member that, if he will withdraw his Amendment now. I will undertake to look into the matter, and endeavour to get inserted in another place an Amendment which will meet the case which he desires to meet by his Amendment and which will not be open to the same technical difficulties.

Sir W. RAEBURN: In view of what the Minister of Health has just said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 12.—(Regulations as to reference committees).

(2) In addition to any questions that may be referred to a reference committee by the County Court under this Part of this Act, provision may be made by the Regulations for the reference to and determination by a reference committee of any questions in relation to the rent payable or to be paid by a sitting tenant which may be submitted to them by the tenant and landlord.

(3) Every Regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either of those Houses within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Regulations is laid before it, praying that the Regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "and" ["tenant and landlord"], and to insert instead thereof the word "or."
The Clause provides that the reference may be submitted to them by the tenant and landlord, which means that both of them must combine to submit their point to the reference committee. I suggest that the tenant or the landlord should be able to approach the reference committee; that this should not depend upon concurrence between the tenant and the landlord, but that either the landlord or the tenant should have power to say, "I will not submit my point to the reference committee." I want the reference committee to be moved to activity either by the tenant or the landlord, whereas the Bill as it stands provides that both the
tenant and the landlord must agree. If the landlord likes to say that he prefers to go to the Court, he has a great advantage over the tenant, and therefore may make the influence of the reference committee nugatory.
This reference committee will be extremely valuable, economical, and efficient, but they must not be committees set up merely for the convenience of the Court. I want them available for the tenant or the landlord in the first instance, so that litigation may be avoided. I am under the impression that the committees may be conciliation committees, which will enable the tenants to get justice without the necessity of having to employ lawyers and go to the expense of going to Court. There are many of these poor tenants who would rather suffer injustice than go to Court or be taken to Court. If you have these reference committees, I should like them to be available to the tenant or the landlord, and to serve the purposes of conciliation committees. I imagine that perhaps nine out of 10 cases would be settled without the intervention of the Court. I had an Amendment down to Sub-section (4). This Amendment is not consequential on that Amendment to Sub-section (4) of Clause 10. If that Amendment had been accepted Sub-section (4) would have read:
In order to assist in the determination of questions arising under this part of the Act in relation to the rent, character or condition of dwelling-houses,"—
etc. Reference committees may be established to which certain questions may be referred by the Court or the tenant or the landlord. That widened the scope of operations of the reference committee, which instead of being moved to activity only by the Court, might be moved to activity by the Court or the landlord or the tenant. If this Amendment is carried, then all questions, in cases of rent only, can be sent to these reference committees by the Court or the landlord or the tenant. This is a very important matter, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If this Amendment were accepted the effect would be to transform completely the nature of the reference committees and convert them into rent courts. The hon. Mem-
ber by this alteration gives the power to a landlord or tenant to appeal to the reference committee to decide any question in relation to the rent payable. That would be totally inconsistent with Subsection (4) of Clause 10 which has been already passed, which says that questions as to the rent, character, or condition of dwelling-houses are to be referred to the reference committee by the Court. The result of this Amendment will be that instead of the Court referring the matter to the reference committee it would be referred on the single initiative of the landlord or tenant. Therefore it can be seen that the Amendment is inconsistent with the Sub-section which has been already accepted, and therefore, in addition to being unacceptable, it is also out of order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that that is so. This Amendment would leave the Bill in an inconsistent, position, and is therefore out of order.

Mr. FAIRBAIRN: On a point of Order, I submit that the first line of Sub-section (2) clearly shows that the matter is in the discretion of the Court. It does not necessarily follow that it must be referred by the Court. My hon. Friend's Amendment means that the Court shall have liberty to send the matter to the reference committee if the landlord or tenant asks. It is only a question of putting the tenant in the same position as the landlord, subject to the direction of the Court.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. FOOT: On a point of Order. It is suggested by the right hon Gentleman that Sub-section (4) of Clause 10 is inconsistent with the Amendment which is now proposed. May I submit that by Sub-section (2) of Clause 12 there is an additional power given so far as the reference committee is concerned. In addition to any question which may be referred to the reference committee by the County Court under this part of the Act, provision may be made for reference and determination by the reference committee of any question as to rent payable or to be paid by a sitting tenant, that may be submitted to them by the landlord or the tenant. I submit that what is done under this Clause is in addition to what has been done previously. It may be open, under Regulation, for the landlord
and tenant without the intervention of the Court to call in the aid of the reference committee.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I point out that Sub-section (2) of Clause 12 says that, in addition to certain questions which may be referred to the reference committee by the County Court under this part of the Act, the Court may also send to the reference committee as an arbitrating body, for decision, any questions submitted to it by both the landlord and the tenant. What the hon. Member's Amendment does is to transform the arbitrating functions provided in Sub-section (2) of Clause 12 into a determination of exactly the same questions as are under Sub-section (4) of Clause 10 reserved to the Court.

Dr. CHAPPLE: As I understand Sub-section (2) of Clause 12, the reference committees may be moved to activity by the Court, or by the tenant and the landlord coming together. My Amendment putting in the word "or" would mean that the reference committees, on questions of rent, may be appealed to by the tenant direct or the landlord direct; that is, that the tenant may ask the reference committee to hear a dispute between him and the landlord with regard to rent, or the landlord may ask the reference committee to hear a dispute between him and the tenant, and the reference committee may call upon the tenant, if the landlord appeals to them, or may call upon the landlord if the tenant appeals to them. The difference is this: If the tenant and landlord must first of all agree, the landlord has an advantage over the tenant, because the tenant may say, "I do not want to go to Court with you, but let us go to the reference committee"; but the landlord says, "No, I prefer the Court," and he takes advantage of his position, forces the tenant to Court, and gets an advantage over him. If the word "or" is inserted, the tenant can go to a reference committee. I submit that it is not the least inconsistent with Sub-section (4) of Clause 10, and has nothing to do with it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I was not quite clear until now, but the hon. Member's argument makes it quite clear to my mind that the Amendment is inconsistent with Sub-section (4)

Dr. CHAPPLE: On another point of Order. When Sub-section (4) was under discussion, and your Deputy was in the Chair, I rose to move an Amendment to leave out the words "the Court." The Deputy-Chairman said that you did not select that Amendment of mine, and, therefore, I could not move it.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Is it in order for an hon. Member to begin to argue all over again a point which has been decided?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must hear the hon. Member's point of Order.

Dr. CHAPPLE: If it is now plain that my Amendment on Clause 12 is inconsistent with Sub-section (4) of Clause 10, but I had an Amendment on that Subsection which was not called, and that deprived me of the advantage of moving an Amendment to Clause 12, I want to know how I can get redress. Your Deputy in the Chair would not call me, although I rose to a point of Order, but if the words "in court" had been left out, would this Amendment then have been in order?

Mr. SPEAKER: That proves more completely than ever that the present Amendment is out of order.

Major-General Sir R. HUTCHINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "either" ["either of those Houses"], and to insert instead thereof the word "each."

Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand this is the first of two Amendments, which together will carry out the intention of the original Amendments on the Paper, which, I have privately taken the opportunity of pointing out to the hon. Member, would, if moved exactly as they stand on the Paper, make nonsense of the Clause. I think he has now amended the Amendment in such a way as to make sense of the Clause: as amended.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words
annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder,
and to insert instead thereof the words
confirmed, His Majesty in Council may confirm the Regulation, and the Regulation shall have the force of law.
Without agreeing with my right hon. Friend that the Amendment as originally drafted made nonsense of the Clause, I willingly insert the words in the form in which they are desired by his technical advisers. The Sub-section then will read as follows:
Every Regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by each of those Houses within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Regulation is laid before it, praying that the Regulation may be confirmed, His Majesty in Council may confirm the Regulation, and the Regulation shall have the force of law.
In this form the words carry out our intention, are acceptable to my right hon Friend, and are in accordance with similar words in the Act.

Dr. CHAPPLE: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment down to reinsert in this Sub-section words which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill took out in Committee. If he is now going to accept this Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, can I still go on with my Amendment? As the matter now stands, under the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend the House may either annul or confirm the Resolution. If the words "or modify" are put in they will give a third alternative. The right hon. Gentleman is taking away from the House the power to modify. The Minister, in Committee upstairs, said he had learnt a lesson from the Nurses Registration Bill and therefore he is going to deprive the House of its right to modify any Rule or Regulation laid on the Table of the House. That, I submit, is an encroachment on our rights and privileges.

Sir F. BANBURY: What was done was with the consent of all parties.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I was not in the House, and I was not a party to the arrangement. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman now whether he is prepared to accept the words "or modify," so as to give the third alternative. These words constitute a real privilege of this House. It is a privilege which has been enjoyed by the House ever since we started legislation by reference. When
this Bill passed its Second Reading, the Sub-section provided that the Regulation should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it had met, and if an Address were presented by the Houses or either of them within 21 days, the Regulation might be annulled or modified. Thus it gave the House the right to modify the Regulation, but upstairs the right hon. Gentleman declared that he proposed to deprive the House of that right. I want to suggest to him that the words should be reinserted in, my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, so as to retain the rights and privileges of this House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has confused the whole issue in this case. The original proposition which we discussed in Committee was quite a different one from that which we are now considering. Under that proposition, the Regulations might be modified or annulled by a Resolution of either House. The hon. Member is quite unfair in his account of what I said upstairs, a correct account of which I will now give to the House. What I pointed out to the Committee was that experience under the Nurses Registration Act showed that a provision which gave to either House a power of modification by Resolution might reduce matters to this absurd deadlock, that one House might pass a modification in one sense, and the other House might pass a modification in exactly the opposite sense, so that there would be a deadlock from which there would be no way out. It was in order to remove that absurdity that in Committee I moved to omit the provision about modification. Now we have a different state of affairs. The Regulations can only become operative if an Address is presented to His Majesty by each House praying that the Regulations may be confirmed, and, therefore, if either House objects to any particular Regulation, all it has to do is to omit to pass an Address praying that that particular Regulation may be confirmed. In that case the Regulation in question will not, of course become operative, and it would then be for the Minister, having ascertained what the view of the House was, to consider what the proper procedure should be and to produce another Regulation.

Captain W. BENN: I think the boon given to the right hon. Baronet is smaller and more meagre than I supposed at the time. In the case of these Regulations, an Address is to be presented to His Majesty praying that the Regulations be confirmed, but does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that for each Regulation a separate Address shall be presented? Of course that could not possibly be done. There will be one Address relating to all the Regulations, and the right hon. Baronet, if he is still here, in return for the revolt which he has led, will have got for us the privilege of saying that we will reject the whole, or we will take what the Government cares to give us. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Dr. Chapple) seems to me to have made a point of substance in saying that we are losing power. What we have really got to now is that the Government will be in the position of presenting a set of Regulations, and we shall have no power except to say that we will take them exactly as they are presented, or, otherwise, to lose our opportunity.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Rules as to procedure.)

The Lord Chancellor may make such Rules and give such directions as he thinks fit for the purpose of giving full effect to the provisions of this Part of this Act relative to legal proceedings.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) desire to move his Amendment, to leave out the words "this Part of"?

Mr. HARNEY: I put this Amendment down as being consequential upon an Amendment which has been disallowed. I had put down an Amendment which would enable the tenant to apply for a house to a landlord who had vacant possession, and, if the landlord refused, to go to the County Court and get an Order. It would then have become necessary to make a rule for the carrying out of that procedure, and, therefore, I put down this Amendment to strike out the words "this Part of," in order to enable Regulations to be made covering both Parts of the Act. It is quite unnecessary now.

CLAUSE 15.—(Certificates of sanitary authorities and definition of repairs.)

(5) For the purposes of this Act the expression "repairs" means any repairs
required for the purpose of keeping premises in good and tenantable repair, and any premises in such a state shall be deemed to be in a reasonable state of repair, and the landlord shall be deemed to be responsible for any repairs for which the tenant is under no express liability.

Mr. JAMES STEWART: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words
repairs' means any repairs required for the purpose of keeping premises in good and tenantable repair, and any premises in such a state shall be deemed to be in a reasonable state of repair,
and to insert instead thereof the words
'reasonable state of repair' means good and tenantable repair, including whatever is required to make the premises fit for human habitation, and 'repairs' means anything required for the purpose of keeping premises in such a state.
In Committee this matter received considerable discussion, and I think it is correct to say that, when we were dealing with the question of repairs, the Minister told us clearly and explicitly that it was intended that internal decorations would be covered by the word "repairs." I questioned that statement so far as Scotland is concerned, and said that, already we had had decisions arising out of the cases taken under the Rent Act whereby the certificate of the sanitary inspector was of such a nature as to declare that the house was not reasonably fit for human habitation. I instanced one case that had happened at Clydebank, not the Kerr and Bride case, dealing entirely with the question whether a landlord was entitled to get an increase of rent because of the fact stated by the tenant that the house was not habitable. It arose in this way. Repairs had been done to the plaster on the walls and the paper had been stripped from the walls. The landlord refused to put fresh paper on the wall, and the sanitary inspector gave a certificate that the house was not reasonably fit for habitation. The case was fought in the Sheriff Court, and the Sheriff Substitute gave a decision in favour of the tenant. The case was appealed to the Sheriff Principal who came to a different finding, and declared that the question of papering the wall was not a part of repairs at all. One other decision of a similar nature has been given, and consequently as far as Scotland is concerned the law as it stands for the moment is that the word repairs does not apply to internal decorations.
What we are asking is that the law shall be made clear on the point, and that the wording of the Amendment shall make it clear that in the case of repairs, internal decorations of the kind I have referred to are part of what the landlord is entitled to do. That is the intention of the Minister. That is the intention of the Act as I understand. But if it is left as it stands and a case arose, as it will undoubtedly arise in Scotland, the result would be exactly similar to the decision which has been given already. May I read the plea of the defender:
The defender entered upon occupation of the house on 28th April, 1920. After entry he complained that the plaster was broken in parts and the landlord accepted the position and had the plaster repaired. In order to have these repairs to the plaster work executed, a very noticeable portion of the entire wallpaper had to be removed. The pursuer contends that the replacement of the removed and damaged wallpaper is a necessary repair for which the landlord is liable. Necessary repairs are defined by the Statute to be those necessary to put the house in a reasonable state of repair. The defender's position is that the house in its present condition is in a reasonable state of repair. Expert evidence was not spared by the defender in order to show that the house in its present state is in a reasonable state of repair. Of these witnesses, one, Dr. Taylor, admitted that he spoke only from the point of hygiene, which was not in question. Another witness, Chisholm, gave his personal views on the question of repairs, but these opinions did not appeal to me as being based on any principle allowing me to judge of their soundness.
Other witnesses followed thereafter and the Sheriff Substitute decreed that the defender was entitled to a decree as against the landlord, and the Sheriff Principal, on reviewing the case, came to an entirely different finding. If the Minister desires to make it clear beyond doubt what is the intention of the Act he has to accept my Amendment or substitute words in the Bill to make it clear what the intention was as he stated upstairs.

Mr. McENTEE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS: Those people who are interested in housing reform owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend for putting forward this Amendment. It is one of the most difficult and burning questions in our poor districts to define what is the kind of repairs that are necessary, and enforcement is even greater. Anybody who has been follow-
ing the administration of the last Act by leading sanitary authorities, knows how extraordinarily difficult a task they have had. The owner of slum property is usually a very cute, clever, sharp-witted person, very ingenious in covering up defects in the condition of the houses from which he draws rents, and for years there has been a constant conflict between the local authorities and the owners of this kind of property. These particular owners have extraordinary skill in covering up faulty workmanship, insanitary, verminous rooms, which badly want painting; and they are very clever in avoiding their responsibilities. Very often, there are too many families to each house, and too many persons to each room, and unless a decent standard is insisted upon, you cannot get these houses in anything like a decent state of repair.
There is a constant struggle with vermin, where you have an insufficient water supply, and where the opportunities for cleansing the houses are insufficient, and the buildings originally were badly built, with unsatisfactory foundations, and no proper damp courses. I could take the right hon. Gentleman down to the East End of London, and no doubt he has seen the same thing in Birmingham, where there are houses with no proper damp course, with the ground floor below the level of the ground, the rooms constantly damp. Owing sometimes to the poverty of the owners of the property and at other times to their unwillingness to do their duty, these houses are from one year to another never really fit for human habitation, and it is only by insisting that Regulations in regard to repairs are made as clear as ingenuity can make them, that things are going to be anything like satisfactory. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this Amendment now, he will see whether in another place he cannot substitute something better.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been somewhat taken by surprise at the speeches made upon this Amendment, because they have been speeches of criticism of the present interpretation of the words in the existing Act. If it be true that the words in the existing Act do not give the protection to the tenant that he ought to have, this Amendment is not going to improve matters, because
anyone who will read the relevant parts of the Bill, that is to say, Clause 15, Subsection (1), will find that it refers to works required to be executed to put a dwelling-house into a reasonable state of repair, and Sub-section (5) of the same Clause states what a reasonable state of repair is to be, namely, "good and tenantable repair"—words which appear in the Amendment of the hon. Member. In fact, the Amendment is nothing but a drafting Amendment. The hon. Member has taken the words in the Bill and turned them round. Still, it remains the fact that under the Amendment a reasonable state of repair would have to be interpreted as "good and tenantable repair." The Amendment really has no bearing on the case which the hon. Member put, but if he will allow me to have a look at the case I shall be glad. It seems to me that in that case the interpretation put upon the words is not the interpretation which I would have expected and not the interpretation which I had been advised would generally be attached to these words. I shall be quite prepared, however, to consider whether it is possible to define what is meant by "good and tenantable repair" better than it is understood at present. I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not giving any sort of guarantee. I am not sure that the proper place to put any alternative, if alternative were desired, would be in a temporary Rent Restrictions Act, and whether it should not be in a permanent Housing Act. Still, I recognise the force of the point of the hon. Member, and I am quite ready to give it further consideration on this Bill.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I have a recollection that a deputation from Dundee drew the particular attention of the Scottish Board of Health to the point raised in the Amendment. I can assure the Minister of Health that in Scotland at any rate the interpretation given does exclude, as far as operation is concerned, that reasonable provision which the Mover of the Amendment has in view. It is very gratifying to find that the Minister is prepared to consider this matter. It means a very great deal for the tenant. In Scotland, such important matters as the cleanness of a place, the redecoration, the giving of the requisite wallpaper, and the necessary application of
workmanship, are all set aside, whereas before this housing control was in operation you could get a landlord to make a deal with his tenant, the tenant to buy the paper and the labour to be provided by the landlord. We have had instances to show how rigorously every allowance in the Bill is taken advantage of by the landlord for putting on the full increases, and we are faced with the difficulty that the tenants have to pay largely increased rents even when they are endeavouring to share the responsibility for those increased rents by sub-letting. It has been agreed to permit of a further exaction and I hope, on so important a matter as this, the Ministry will take action on the lines of the concession indicated by the Minister, and that if we are to permit the landlords to charge the fullest possible allowance, we will see that something substantial is done to make up for the increased charge.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I have every sympathy with the object of the Mover of the Amendment, but I suggest the Amendment will not have the desired effect, and that the words proposed will be restrictive. The obligation cast upon the landlord will be less than the obligation he is under according to the words of the Bill. The Bill provides that a reasonable state of repair means keeping the premises "in good and tenantable repair." These are words well understood by the law, which appear in the ordinary covenant of every lease, and upon which there have been numerous decisions. There is a leading case which is acted upon, in which the whole matter was gone into and a definition given in the most careful and meticulous manner of "good and tenantable repair." It means something more than keeping the premises in a state fit for human habitation. I do not think that is a very high standard. One might enter into comparisons between what is fit for human beings and what is fit for pigs, but, as I say, that is not a very high standard, and is not very definite. The words which are now proposed lack the clarity attaching to the definition of "good and tenantable repair." I therefore trust that my hon. Friend will not seek to add these words, and will see that the words "good and tenantable repair" provide a good standard. It means such a state of repair as any ordinary reasonable tenant
would require, if he were going to take the premises himself, having regard to the nature of the locality in which the premises are situated. The words apply in a relative degree to Park Lane and other districts, and the better the locality the higher the degree of repair required. Therefore the words are sufficiently mobile, and gives a much higher standard than the Amendment seeks to enforce. I hope the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman will satisfy the Mover upon the matter.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I am surprised at the argument used by the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Entwistle). We have carried our point in this Amendment a step further than the Bill. The Bill simply states:
'Repairs' means any repairs required for the purpose of keeping premises in good and tenantable repair.
That would mean a house with no decorations at all—simply whitewashed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, it would. I have a document here to prove conclusively what I have said. The report of a sanitary inspector on a house recently was this:
In the kitchen the wallpaper on lower half of walls has been removed for the repair of the plaster work and has not been renewed at all.
That house was deemed to be a house in a state of good and tenantable repair without re-papering the walls at all, and we carry the point further by saying that "good and tenantable repair" includes whatever is required to make the premises fit for human habitation. However, in view of what the Minister of Health has said, we are prepared, with the permission of the House, to withdraw the Amendment in the hope that he will meet somehow or other the case we have put forward.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman was careful to tell us that we must not take it as a pledge that anything would be done. I would like him to make inquiries, and I think he will find that almost every medical officer of health and other person who has to inspect this kind of premises will tell him that putting a house into the condition laid down in this Clause does not mean papering a wall, but does mean just putting it so that water or wind do not come in. In the Poplar district we have
the greatest difficulty in getting the magistrates to close houses which, in the judgment of ordinary people, ought to be closed, because we are not able to prove that water comes in. If there are windows in, and the roof is on, that is about all that the magistrates consider necessary. Therefore, if it is not to be done in this Bill, I think the Minister ought to bring in a short Bill in order to deal with this question, because it is one of the burning questions that the local authority is up against when trying to deal with slum property.

Mr. HARNEY: I wish to point out a curious confusion in the drawing of the Clause and the Sub-section. The first Sub-section says:
A certificate of a sanitary authority as to the condition of a dwelling-house shall specify what works, if any, require to be executed, in order to put a dwelling-house into a reasonable state of repair.
I suppose that the Judge would interpret what, that means, but when you come to the later Sub-section you find the words
Good and tenantable repair shall be deemed to be a state of reasonable repair.
One would have thought that a natural thing to do would be to put into the first Sub-section that the certificate should deal with good and tenantable repair. Why is it necessary to have one Subsection saying the certificate shall state what is necessary to put into a reasonable state of repair, and then another Subsection to say a reasonable state of repair shall mean a good and tenantable state of repair? I simply wanted to draw attention to that as another illustration of the hopeless confusion that is imported into this Bill from beginning to end, designedly or from bad draughtsmanship, which will leave its mark in the future in all the Courts as the worst drawn Act of Parliament that ever was passed.

Mr. JAMES STEWART: In view of the offer that has been made by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 16.—(Application to Scotland.)

This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:

(a) The twenty-eighth day of May shall be substituted for the twenty-fourth
1316
day of June; the Scottish Board of Health shall be substituted for the Minister of Health; references to the Registrar of a County Court shall not apply; and "exciseable liquor" shall be substituted for "intoxicating liquor";
(b) For removing doubts it is hereby declared that nothing in the principal Act affects the operation of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1920, and the reference in Sub-section (2) of Section one of the last mentioned Act to the provisions of Acts repealed by the principal Act shall be construed as a reference to the provisions of Section three of the principal Act.

Mr. SPEAKER: The two remaining Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn)—at the end of Clause 16 to insert a new paragraph—
The landlord shall, in respect of all rates imposed upon him as owner for the current year of assessment and thereafter so long as the principal Act shall continue in force, be entitled, in settling with the assessing authorities, to such deduction from the amount payable as shall reduce the same to the amount whch would have been payable if the assessment had been imposed on the basis of the rate in force on the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen,
and to insert a further new paragraph—
All assessments leviable in Scotland upon the owners and occupiers in respect of houses to which the principal Act applies shall during the current assessment year ending at Whitsunday, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and thereafter so long as the principal Act continues in force, be leviable only upon the basis of the annual rent or value as appearing on the valuation roll for the year ending at Whitsunday, nineteen hundred and fifteen.
are both out of Order, as they are outside the scope of the Bill.

Bill to be read the Third time upon Friday next.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS

REMISSION OF DEBTS)

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans.

Orders of the Day — NATIONALISATION OF MINES AND MINERALS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do so because I think the present condition of the industry leaves a great deal to be desired.

Mr. AMMON: I beg to second the Motion.

Lord E. PERCY: In the absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox)—

Captain BENN: Why is he absent?

Lord E. PERCY: My hon. and gallant Friend has not the same foresight as the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, who is always in his place. This is a Bill for the nationalisation of mines and minerals which the Government cannot support, and I do not think it should be read a second time, and at this hour of the night, without proper discussion.

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): It would be ill befitting the dignity of this House that a Measure of such importance should be passed into law without more discussion than this Bill has received. The attitude of the House raises memories of other Debates in the last Parliament on various Measures brought forward in different parts of the House. Seldom or never have we had the House discussing a Measure of this first-class importance with that light-heartedness and carelessness which is more the privilege of those who enjoy a position of greater freedom and less responsibility. On the general question of the nationalisation of mines and minerals I do not think hon. Members opposite on the Labour Benches can be quite serious—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh!"]—in proposing that a Measure of this importance should be given a Second Reading in this House in five minutes' time, after the long and heated discussion which has taken place this afternoon. There are many points of substance and indeed of principle in this Measure. [An HON. MEMBER: Have you read the Bill?] I have read all these Bills. The Clauses in this Bill are legion, and when hon.
Members go through the Amendments which I shall put down, hon. Members will realise the extent to which responsible discussion may go in a measure of this kind. It raises the general question of the nationalisation of mines and minerals, and it is one which cannot be judged fully at the moment; but we know that we are having experience in the matter, year after year, as to the extraordinary inefficiency and failure of the undertakings conducted on the lines of nationalisation. There is the case of Russia. The hon. Member opposite when he went there became a Noble Lord.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order No. 19, which deals with irrelevancy and tedious repetition, and I would ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite is not indulging in this?

Mr. SPEAKER: As for repetition, we have not had time for that yet. As for tediousness, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own face is the best answer to that suggestion.

Captain ELLIOT: I am endeavouring to protect the rights of private Members, because this is a Bill which will have to be worked by bureaucracy, and it is a Measure such as we may expect hon. Members opposite to pass into law when they get the opportunity.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Captain ELLIOT: Important legislation of this kind will be rushed through under a Socialist administration. This Measure, for instance, of 23 Clauses has been moved in a speech lasting but a minute or two, formally seconded, and there has been no opportunity for discussion allowed to any hon. Member on this side of the House.

Mr. LANSBURY: It might be a Crimes Bill we are passing.

Captain ELLIOT: No doubt, new crimes will be created by this new legislation.

Mr. LANSBURY: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be
now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Captain ELLIOT: Measures of this kind have been under discussion on more than one occasion in other countries. We have discussions going as far back as the ancient relics of China and Japan—

Mr. LANSBURY: And Peru!

Captain ELLIOT: And Peru, that State in which private enterprise was abolished, and consequently the State decayed.

Mr. EDE: , rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put, but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put the Question.

Captain ELLIOT: And as I was saying, Peru—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock.